UniPixel CIT Defeats CIT UniPixel in First Round of Litigation
The U.K. High Court takes the CIT vs. UniPixel case
Why CIT won?
The reason the CIT won is because the 2005 non-disclosure (NDA) agreement was upheld. The 2010 NDA that mentioned Texas as the sole litigation avenue was not valid.
The 2005 NDA was between UniPixel Displays and Xennia for the TMOS project. In 2010 UniPixel approached Xennia interested in CIT technology. Xennia informed UniPixel that they were not longer working with CIT and advised UniPixel to ask CIT directly.
CIT requested a NDA from UniPixel to work with them. UniPixel did the NDA but later UniPixel asked for the NDA to be revoked because no exchange of information took place.
"Since CIT is not in a position to supply the materials to UniPixel Displays, and as no information exchange has taken place between CIT and UniPixel, we feel that the NDA that we mutually signed is not valid."24 March 2010, Mr Ram Ramakrishnan, the director of materials and process engineering at UniPixel Displays
The 2010 NDA was not a continuation of the 2005 NDA. The parties were different and the scope of the NDA was different (no longer for the TMOS project). And both parties agreed that the 2010 NDA was not valid.
The 2005 NDA has been upheld and CIT is free seek litigation in the U.K. at UniPixel's expense. Many longs believe that the case is fishing expedition and it is. But it is a fishing expedition likely to catch fish.
I would like to mention that any ruling in the U.K. will be upheld by the European Union.
Here is a link of the ruling.