The jury found the defendants liable on all counts including fraud, civil theft, violations of Florida's RICO act, civil conspiracy, misappropriations of Super Vision's technology and destruction of evidence. Among the witnesses testifying in the case was a Special Agent with the FBI who testified that in a phone call monitored by the FBI, Jack Caruso was overheard stating that he was paid $1.4 million by the Wu Family for information that later became a US patent filed on their behalf. The original patent information was sent at 5am by Mr. Caruso from Super Vision's fax machine while Mr. Caruso was still employed by Super Vision and contained drawings of Super Vision's machinery and descriptions of its fibre optic cable manufacturing process.
The verdict came after years of investigation and litigation including reports from private investigators retained by Super Vision confirming that equipment stolen from Super Vision's laboratory, as well as information including customer lists, reseller lists, chemical formulations and blueprints and diagrams of Super Vision's plastic fibre optic cabling manufacturing process, were illegally obtained by the above defendants for the purposes of duplication and sale of Super Vision's product line. A six-member jury of three men and three women awarded the verdict for damages inflicted on Super Vision for the theft of Super Vision's technology, as well as punitive damages for willful misconduct by the defendants. The jury ordered the amount of $33,100,000 dollars for compensatory and punitive damages. Punitive damages for civil theft were also ordered for the amount of $8.1 million dollars.
Prior to the trial in November 1999, Super Vision received an injunction against the above mentioned defendants enjoining them from future sales of fibre optic products utilizing Super Vision's technology and finding that the defendants as a group consisted of an enterprise under Florida's Racketeering Influenced Corruption ‘RICO’ Act. In August 2002, Judge Thomas Spencer found the defendants in contempt of court, finding that the parties had violated the injunction by hiding equipment stolen from Super Vision and transferred fibre optic inventory from their warehouse in Miami to China. Super Vision had a proprietary interest in this inventory which also constituted potential evidence in the case. The Court further found the defendants had shredded documents and destroyed other potential evidence in this case. The majority of individual defendants had refused to answer any questions throughout the last two-and-a-half years of litigation, by virtue of asserting their Constitutional 5th Amendment privilege, which they continued to do throughout trial.
John Fisher and Joseph Tamborello of the Orlando law firm of Fisher Rushmer Werrenrath Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, PA, served as counsel on the case. Super Vision has retained Gary, Williams, Parenti, Finney, Lewis, McManus, Watson & Sperando of Stuart, Florida to represent the company against the patent attorneys who assisted the Wu Family in the transfer of Super Vision's technology.
(Ruth Rossington)
