• September 4, 2013

Update (September 4, 2013): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted something of a reprieve to Dr. Elkin.  Because only one of the six claims that a jury found against him called for attorneys’ fees, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that the $1.9 million fee award against him was excessive and the Court remanded for a “recount.”

Update (August 24, 2011):  (Under the headline: “A very bad day for Dr. Peter L. Elkin”) $1.9+ million attorneys fee award for Mayo against Dr. Elkin.

Update (April 27, 2011):  A jury verdict for Mayo.   The jury found for Mayo on all of Mayo’s claims that Elkin breached his employment agreement, misappropriated trade secrets, stole (“converted”) Mayo software and source code, and breached his fiduciary duty owed to Mayo.  The jury was not asked to find damages to Mayo (not all perfidy pays off, of course, and maybe it is a matter of no use seeking blood from a stone).

In fact, it was Elkin, who was found to have damages against Mayo, on his breach of contract claim (payments for royalties) for $143,222.20 (although this was apparently a heavily discounted fraction of what Elkin had sought from the jury).

Original post (April 19, 2011):  This morning, the trade secret complaint brought by the Mayo Clinic against a former Mayo doctor goes to trial before a jury and Sr. U.S. District Court Judge David S. Doty (D. Minn.).

The Mayo Clinic seeks to offer 433 documents into evidence.   Dr. Elkin apparently objects to 429 of them, almost all of them on the basis of “relevance.”  (In other words, Dr. Elkin takes the position that the Mayo Clinic seeks to offer over 400 irrelevant documents into evidence.  If Dr. Elkin’s objection has merit, the strategy would seem quite odd.  Something tells me that the Mayo Clinic does not intend to offer 400 irrelevant pieces of evidence at trial…)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.