IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—D.N.J.: Dismissal granted in video synchronization over network system dispute, (Nov 13, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for misappropriation of trade secrets were not properly pleaded because the court was unable to say on the pleadings whether the plaintiff actually possessed anything beyond general knowledge of computer networking.

A developer of a system for synchronizing multiple video and audio displays failed to state a claim for trade secret misappropriation against a former potential business partner, the U.S. District Court in Newark has held. The developer failed to identify its claimed secrets with sufficient particularity, (Signet Media, Inc. v. LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-04441-ES-JBC, (D.N.J. Nov. 10, 2025)).

Signet Media, Inc. (Signet) was the developer of Eyesync, a server-based technology which could be used to allow different video content to be displayed simultaneously on multiple screens with synchronized audio and included “complex compression algorithms, auto discovery, customized user interfaces, dynamic interface skinning and location based services for analytics.”

Signet engaged in discussions with LG Electronics USA, Inc. and related LG entities (collectively, LG) about the Eyesync product and the parties entered into a mutual non-disclosure agreement. The potential business relationship did not materialize, and Signet alleged that LG then brought to market its Pro:Centric Catena system using the information disclosed by Signet under the non-disclosure agreement.

Signet brought suit for trade secret misappropriation under the under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act (NJTSA) and common law misappropriation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing under New Jersey law. LG moved to dismiss.

Trade secrets. LG argued that Signet had failed to identify its claimed trade secrets with sufficient particularity. Signet had described aspects of computer networking and alleged that its configurations were “non-standard” but had not explained what exactly made its networking non-standard or unique. The court was unable to say whether Signet was actually in possession of anything beyond general knowledge. As a result, the court dismissed the claims for violations of the trade secrets statutes as well as common law misappropriation.

Breach of contract. The court found that only one LG entity was alleged to have signed the non-disclosure agreement, but Signet had brought suit for breach of it against multiple LG entities without clearly distinguishing between them. The court also found that Signet’s allegations that even one of them had actually breached the agreement were conclusory at best and did not allege specific facts to support a disclosure in violation of the agreement.

After finding briefly that a claim for unjust enrichment was duplicative of the breach of contract claim and that breach of the duty of faith and fair dealing simply was not applicable to the facts alleged, the court granted the motion to dismiss, without prejudice.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-04441-ES-JBC.

Judge: Salas, E.

Attorneys: Katherine Ann Escanlar (Saiber LLC) for Signet Media, Inc. James Leckie (O'Toole Scrivo, LLC) for LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc.

Companies: Signet Media, Inc.; LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc.

Cases: TechnologyInternet TradeSecrets NewJerseyNews