Tao of Systems Integration, Incorporated v. Analytical Services & Materials, Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2148
TAO OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ANALYTICAL SERVICES & MATERIALS, INCORPORATED;
JALAIAH UNNAM; VENKI SUBBIAH VENKAT, formerly
known as Subbiah Venkateswaran,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SIVA MANGALAM,
Defendant.
No. 04-2149
TAO OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
and
SIVA MANGALAM,
Counter Defendant - Appellee,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
versus
ANALYTICAL SERVICES & MATERIALS, INCORPORATED;
JALAIAH UNNAM; VENKI SUBBIAH VENKAT, formerly
known as Subbiah Venkateswaran,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (CA-03-67-4)
Argued: May 25, 2005 Decided: August 5, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Gregory Neil Stillman, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Alan Dale Albert, David
Kegebein Sutelan, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: Brent L. VanNorman, HUNTON
& WILLIAMS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
George H. Bowles, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
This case stems from a dispute arising from a series of bids
by rival engineering firms seeking to provide services to NASA.
Tao of Systems Integration, Inc., appeals from the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of Analytical Services and
Materials, Inc. (ASM) on Tao’s Lanham Act claim. ASM appeals from
the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tao on
ASM’s trade secrets misappropriation claim and from the district
court’s refusal to grant summary judgment in favor of ASM on Tao’s
trade secrets misappropriation claim. We have reviewed the record
and considered the parties’ arguments and find them to be
meritless. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. (J.A. at 3136-61.)
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --