Security Management Expert Witness Case Study

by

​In the case of MGMTL, LLC v. Strategic Technology Institute, Inc., No. 20-2138 (E.D. La. 2023), the testimony of a Security Management Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing allegations of copyright infringement and breach of contract related to proprietary security software.​

Background of the Case

MGMTL, LLC developed the Security Management and Reporting Tool (SMART), a software application designed to streamline security management processes for the U.S. Department of Defense and related industries. In 2013, MGMTL obtained a registered copyright for SMART. The company entered into a distributor agreement with Strategic Technology Institute, Inc. (STI), allowing STI to advertise, promote, and resell SMART to end-users. However, MGMTL alleged that STI violated this agreement by repackaging SMART as a new software application called Personnel Administrative Security System (PASS), which STI then sold to the Marine Forces Reserve and listed on its General Services Administration (GSA) schedule for $214,094.00 per license.​

Role of the Security Management Expert Witness

To substantiate its claims, MGMTL retained a Security Management Expert Witness to provide specialized insights into the functionality and market value of SMART, as well as the implications of its alleged unauthorized use by STI. The expert’s responsibilities included:​

  • Evaluating Software Functionality: Assessing the unique features and capabilities of SMART that distinguish it within the security management industry.​

  • Determining Market Value: Analyzing the software’s market potential and the financial impact resulting from its unauthorized use.​

  • Assessing Industry Standards: Comparing SMART to existing industry standards to highlight its proprietary nature and competitive edge.​

The expert concluded that SMART possessed distinctive features providing MGMTL with a competitive advantage in the security management field. The unauthorized use by STI, therefore, had significant financial and operational repercussions for MGMTL.​

Court Proceedings and Findings

In July 2020, MGMTL filed a lawsuit against STI in the Eastern District of Louisiana, asserting claims for copyright infringement, breach of the Software Evaluation Agreement, breach of the Distributor Agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets under both the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act (LUTSA) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). After a seven-day trial, the jury found in favor of MGMTL on the claims of copyright infringement and breach of the Distributor Agreement, awarding $180,000 in damages. The jury found against MGMTL on the remaining claims.​

STI appealed the decision, challenging the jury’s verdict on several grounds, including the admissibility and reliability of the expert testimony provided by MGMTL’s Security Management Expert Witness. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and ultimately affirmed the district court’s final judgment in favor of MGMTL on the copyright infringement and breach of the Distributor Agreement claims. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment for MGMTL on the two trade secrets misappropriation claims and vacated the judgment in part, remanding for the district court to enter judgment in favor of STI on the breach of the Software Evaluation Agreement claim.​

Legal Significance

This case underscores the critical role of Security Management Expert Witnesses in intellectual property disputes within the technology sector. Their specialized knowledge is essential in elucidating complex technical details, assessing the uniqueness of software solutions, and quantifying damages stemming from unauthorized use. The involvement of such experts ensures that courts are well-informed when adjudicating cases involving specialized technological assets.​

Conclusion

The MGMTL, LLC v. Strategic Technology Institute, Inc. case highlights the importance of expert testimony in legal disputes involving proprietary technology. The insights provided by the Security Management Expert Witness were central to articulating the value of SMART and the impact of its alleged misappropriation, thereby guiding the court’s understanding of the intricate issues at hand.