Rivian has requested a choose to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Tesla, arguing that two of the three claims within the case fails to state enough allegations of commerce secret theft and poaching expertise and as an alternative was an try to malign its status and harm its personal recruiting efforts.
One remaining declare of breach of contract in opposition to 4 former Tesla staff was not included on this submitting asking for “demurrer” or a dismissal as a result of they don’t associated on to Rivian. It’s nonetheless attainable that attorneys representing these former staff will make the same argument.
Tesla didn’t reply to a request for remark. TechCrunch will replace the article if the corporate responds.
In July, Tesla filed a lawsuit in opposition to Rivian and 4 former employers, on claims of poaching expertise and stealing commerce secrets and techniques. Specifically, Tesla claimed that Rivian instructed a just lately departing Tesla worker concerning the sorts of confidential data it wanted.
Rivian stated in its August 10 submitting with the California Superior Court in Santa Clara, that it has “rigorous insurance policies and procedures to ensure it doesn’t acquire confidential data from different firms when on-boarding staff.” Rivian stated not one of the alleged commerce secrets and techniques in Tesla’s grievance have been situated at Rivian or on any of its techniques.
Rivian’s primary argument is that Tesla did not state information enough to represent reason behind motion. That legalese primarily signifies that the claims Tesla made aren’t enough to justify a proper to sue. Rivian argues that Tesla is utilizing hypothesis, not information for the premise of its lawsuit.
“In explicit, the Court mustn’t credit score as true hypothesis of the sort scattered all through Tesla’s grievance,” Rivian stated within the submitting.
Rivian didn’t simply dispute Tesla’s grievance, it pushed again more durable with its personal claims of impropriety.
Lawyers representing Rivian argued that Tesla didn’t file the case to defend or defend reliable mental property rights, however as an alternative utilized in “improper and malicious try to sluggish” the corporate’s momentum and try to break its model. The submitting additionally claimed that Tesla used the lawsuit to scare its personal staff from leaving the corporate.
Unfortunately, maligning Rivian was not Tesla’s solely ulterior motive. Rather, it crafted
its grievance to attain second improper objective — particularly to ship threatening message to its personal staff: don’t dare go away Tesla. Understanding that the sturdy public coverage favoring
worker mobility in California restricts using non-compete contracts, Tesla’s grievance
seeks to punish 4 of its former staff for leaving Tesla and becoming a member of the Rivian workforce.
The response additionally questioned the timing of the lawsuit, which was filed quickly after Rivian introduced it had raised $2.5 billion in a spherical led by funds and accounts suggested by T. Rowe Price Associates Inc.