The Law Offices of David G. Concannon, LLC

The Law Offices of David G. Concannon, LLC handles a variety of commercial litigation and personal injury cases, including cases involving misappropriation of trade secrets, infringement of intellectual property rights, breach of contract, employment disputes, tortious interference, products liability, personal injury and wrongful death.  Here are a few examples of the firm’s cases and successes:

Barrett v. Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd. - In a closely watched test case that was discussed on Internet forums around the world, Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., the English manufacturer of sophisticated scuba diving equipment known as the Inspiration rebreather, was found not responsible for the death of Robert Barrett - a diver who died while using the equipment in Pennsylvania in August 2002.  David Concannon was lead counsel for Ambient in the four year legal battle and two week trial in Concord, New Hampshire federal court.  Click here for more information.

Kusler v. Visibility Unlimited – The firm successfully defended a PADI Dive Instructor in a wrongful death action brought against the instructor and a dive shop in Illinois state court. 

The widow of a scuba diver that died while engaged in a PADI Advanced Open Water scuba diving course brought suit, alleging claims for negligence and wrongful death.  The firm initially won a dismissal of the case after the court enforced the PADI Assumption of Risk and Liability Release Agreement that the diver signed prior to engaging in the certification course.  

The plaintiff subsequently refiled the lawsuit, alleging a claim for gross negligence.  The plaintiff claimed that the defendants acted with reckless indifference to the rights of the deceased diver because he allegedly drowned in the presence of the instructor.  However, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case after the firm's medical expert demonstrated that the Coroner incorrectly attributed the cause of death to drowning, when in fact the deceased diver suffered a sudden and fatal heart attack. 

Commercial Litigation - Breach of Contract

VideoRay, LLC v. Integrated Support Associates, Inc. - The firm’s client, VideoRay, LLC, is a manufacturer of micro underwater submersibles known as remotely operated vehicles (“ROVs”).  VideoRay's eight pound ROV is operated from a suitcase-sized control panel and provides crisp video footage to the user, including several United States Government agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, NASA and the United States Navy. 

In October 2007, VideoRay sold more than $247,929.70 in goods and services to Integrated Support Associates, Inc. (“ISAI”), an Alexandria, Virginia based government and commercial consulting company.  ISAI accepted the goods but never paid for them.  After VideoRay made repeated unsuccessful attempts to collect its debt from ISAI, the firm filed a breach of contract lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Meanwhile, VideoRay posted updates on its web site here.  

On October 6, 2008, the Court granted VideoRay's motion for summary judgment, rejecting ISAI's argument that an invoice stating that 1.5% monthly interest accumulated on unpaid amounts was not a contract.  The Court awarded VideoRay principal in the amount of $247,929.70, and unpaid interest through September 22, 2008 of $37,189.45, for a total of $285,119.16.  Please click here for a copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order.   
 

Laminations Inc. v. Roma Direct Marketing, LLC - Laminations, Inc., the manufacturer of the EarthBox self-watering planter, filed suit against the firm’s clients, Roma Direct Marketing, LLC and its owners, alleging that the defendants’ Garden Patch self-watering planter infringed on the patent for the EarthBox, and the defendants misappropriated Laminations’ trade secrets when they left Laminations’ employment two years earlier.

On April 19, 2007, Judge Thomas Vanaskie of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, denied Laminations’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding there was no likelihood of success on the plaintiff's claim for patent infringement and no ascertainable damages. Click here for a copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order.  The case has settled and Laminations has dismissed its claims with prejudice.

MAR-VEL International, Inc. v. Bradford Milnes, et al. - The firm’s client, MAR-VEL International, Inc., holds several government contracts to supply military and tactical equipment to the U.S. military and state and local law enforcement.  In June 2006, MAR-VEL filed suit against two of its former employees, the brother of the former employee, and two of their companies, alleging the defendants "hatched a scheme to establish a new company that would directly compete with MAR-VEL" while the employees were still employed by MAR-VEL.

The suit accused the defendants of "stealing and making use of MAR-VEL’s trade secrets and corporate assets, and by soliciting MAR-VEL’s vendors and customers."  A forensic investigation of the former employees’ computers revealed that they e-mailed MAR-VEL’s customer lists, pricing information, details about bids and future business opportunities to off-site e-mail accounts and their new company so they could use this information to compete with MAR-VEL.  The case quickly settled, with the defendants stipulating to the entry of injunctive relief.

The case also made the news when the defendants' lead counsel, a Pennsylvania resident who maintained an out-of-state law license in New York but was an inactive member of the Pennsylvania Bar, was denied pro hac vice admission by the U.S. District Court.  Please click here and here for copies of the court's decisions finding that the attorney was in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.
 

ITI Holdings, Inc. v. Professional Scuba Association, Inc., et al. - ITI Holdings, Inc., the parent company of three scuba diving training agencies, Scuba Diving International (SDI), Technical Diving International (TDI) and Emergency Response Diving International (ERDI), filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against a competing scuba certification agency after four of ITI’s former high level executives defected with customer lists and electronic copies of ITI’s intellectual property, and then used this information to compete with ITI internationally.

The lawsuit, which alleged claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, civil conspiracy, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and tortious interference with actual and prospective contractual relations, settled after evidence produced in the litigation revealed that ITI’s former managers and authors engaged in secret campaign to loot ITI of its corporate assets and instructor base while they were still affiliated with ITI.

Some of ITI’s former managers have been making public statements trumpeting their premature dismissal from the case in March 2006 after a technical violation of a local court rule.  However, the evidence produced in the Florida litigation after this dismissal reveals that they engaged in multiple wrongful acts.  This evidence, which includes deposition testimony, minutes of planning meetings held months before these individuals left ITI, and e-mails describing the implementation of their plan and other materials, will be made available upon request.

One particularly damning document is posted here.  This is the minutes of a November 2004 planning meeting attended by Michael Ange, Joseph Keiser and David Crockford while they were still under contract to ITI, and months before they actually notified ITI that they were leaving.  Particularly telling is David Crockford’s description of how he manages ITI’s European operations; how he interfaces with Joseph Keiser, the head of ITI’s Asian operations; and how Keiser and Crockford will run the new agency’s European and Asian operations after they defect.  Crockford did not leave ITI until the end of January 2005.  Keiser did not notify ITI that he was leaving until April 2005.