Iverson's Unlimited, Inc. v. Winco Foods, LLC

On summary judgment, “a reasonable jury could reach . . . a contrary conclusion, but . . . the question is not which conclusion is most likely but whether an issue of fact exists that permits jury resolution.” Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 332 (2014).

Plaintiff, Iverson’s Unlimited, Inc. (Iverson), appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Winco Foods, LLC (Winco) on Iverson’s claims alleging Winco divulged trade secrets and violated the terms of their oral contract. Iverson argued that when Winco attached Iverson’s unloading data to its bid for distribution, Iverson’s competitors were able to calculate and outbid Iverson based on the numbers Winco provided. Iverson argued that it should be able to recover compensation for misappropriation under the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Winco argued that there was no proof of causation between providing the information and information being used to calculate costs and profits to bid higher bids. On summary judgment, “a reasonable jury could reach . . . a contrary conclusion, but . . . the question is not which conclusion is most likely but whether an issue of fact exists that permits jury resolution.” Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 332 (2014). The Court of Appeals held that a reasonable jury could find that there was causation between the divulged information and formulation of bids because Iverson presented evidence that competing business used its information to calculate bids. Reversed and remanded.