IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—S.D.N.Y.: Amazon obtains dismissal of suit over body scanning technology, (Sep 4, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims relating to disclosures allegedly made in patent applications were dismissed because the pleading did not plausibly allege how the patent applications disclosed the specific secrets and because the patent applications were published outside the applicable limitations period.

A developer of body scanning technology failed to state claims for misappropriation against Amazon, the U.S. District Court in New York has held. The alleged acts of misappropriation were pled in a conclusory fashion and the complaint was untimely (Select Research Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-06419-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2025)).

Select Research Ltd. (SRL) was a developer of 3-D body scanning technology for which it was the owner of several patents. The technology was used for both retail clothing and healthcare applications, including particularly technology for measuring a Body Volume Index (BVI). SRL entered into a business arrangement with Body Labs, Inc. (Body Labs) under which SRL provided technical expertise in the measurement of BVI to Body Labs, subject to a nondisclosure agreement. Body Labs allegedly developed a copy of SRL’s BVI technology, but ceased development of it after a demand from SRL. Body Labs was subsequently acquired by Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon), and SRL engaged in conversations with Amazon EU, including a non-disclosure agreement, but ultimately Amazon EU did not acquire SRL.

SRL brought suit against various Amazon entities, alleging that several patents acquired by Amazon’s subsidiary Amazon Technologies, Inc. disclosed SRL’s trade secrets that had been disclosed to Body Labs or to Amazon under the non-disclosure agreements. Amazon moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. SRL brought claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and New York law, as well as state law claims for misappropriation of ideas, breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, and conversion.

Trade secrets. Considering both New York and federal trade secrets claims, the court assumed for the sake of argument that SRL had identified a protectable trade secret. However, the court held that SRL had failed to plausibly allege misappropriation of a trade secret. SRL had neglected to respond to Amazon’s arguments regarding misappropriation, therefore forfeiting arguments to the contrary, and the court additionally found that the allegations of misappropriation were far too conclusory; SRL had alleged repeatedly that the patents at issue contained parts of its claimed secrets, but did not explain what that information actually was or how precisely it was disclosed.

The court also found that the alleged misappropriation occurred long outside the three-year statute of limitations applicable to such claims, and that SRL’s claims to have not discovered the misappropriation until within the statutory period were belied by both SRL’s own allegations about its demand to Body Labs and the publication dates of the relevant patent applications.

State law claims. SRL’s claims for idea misappropriation, breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, and conversion were all dismissed as well. The court noted that breach of contract could not lie because, of the two nondisclosure agreements, one had expired by its own terms at the time of the alleged breach and the other was between SRL and Amazon EU, which was not a party to the litigation. The remaining claims were pled without sufficient specificity of factual allegations or were duplicative of the trade secrets claim and therefore preempted by the trade secrets statute.

The court granted the motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-06419-JMF.

Judge: Furman, J.

Attorneys: Daniel J. Pereira (Merchant & Gould PC) for Select Research Ltd. Christina Von Der Ahe Rayburn (Hueston Hennigan LLP) for Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC.

Companies: Select Research Ltd.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services, LLC; Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Cases: Patent TradeSecrets TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews