Patent infringement and trade secrets never crossed my mind when I first learned of the suit, since these guys worked in accessories and there is nothing singularly unique in the Roubaix (except Zertz) and the Liscio seat cluster is nothing like Specialized ever did. I suspected a non-compete agreement.

The rules for non-compete agreements in California are very restrictive, as Choi mentioned, and they go back to 1872. Simply working on the bike while employed by Specialized would not constitute a contract violation because that part of the contract would be invalid in California.

Using company resources, however, such as PCs, email servers, and the sales call reports, for non-company purposes is theft. Most companies allow some personal use of their resources, but Choi crossed the line using them to start a competing company. My first impression of the case was that it would be about the non-compete agreement because I never thought Choi and Forsman would be so foolish as to conduct Volagi business using Specialized resources, especially since Choi had firsthand experience with the kind of hardball Sinyard plays.

The court will not grant Specialized ownership of the longbow flex stay, but the damages could compel Choi to try to make them an offer.