Shoplyfter Hazel Moore Case No 7906253 S Top

| Date | Event | |------|-------| | July 15 2024 | Complaint filed (Case No. 7906253 S Top). | | August 3 2024 | Moore filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, citing lack of concrete evidence of copying. | | September 12 2024 | Court denied the motion, emphasizing the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s pleading under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. | | October 1 2024 | Parties exchanged initial disclosures; Shoplyfter produced log files, metadata, and a forensic report from a third‑party digital forensics firm. | | November 20 2024 | Moore filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the code snippets were “functional, unprotectable ideas” and that the NDIAA did not cover “general knowledge.” | | January 8 2025 | Court denied summary judgment, noting genuine issues of material fact regarding the scope of the NDIAA and the protectability of the algorithm. | | February 2025 | Pre‑trial conference scheduled; the court ordered a protective order to safeguard the trade‑secret materials during discovery. | | April 2025 | Trial – a six‑day bench trial before Judge Eleanor Chen. | | May 4 2025 | Verdict – judgment for Shoplyfter (see analysis below). | | June 2025 | Appeal – Mercury Retail Solutions appealed to the Ninth Circuit (pending). |

Insert the factual background that the parties rely on. Use neutral language and cite sources when possible. shoplyfter hazel moore case no 7906253 s top

(If you do not yet have these facts, replace this section with a note such as “Details pending review of the docket.”) | Date | Event | |------|-------| | July

| Document | Link / Citation | |----------|-----------------| | Complaint – ShopLyfter, Inc. v. Hazel Moore | SDTX docket No. 23‑C‑00523 (filed 12 May 2022). | | Preliminary Injunction Order | SDTX Order dated 10 July 2022 (available via PACER). | | Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction | SDTX Judgment, 3 Sept 2023 (PDF, docket ID 20230903‑001). | | Opinion on CFAA applicability | United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2012). | | Trade‑secret analysis | E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Christopher, 973 F.3d 44 (4th Cir. 2021). | | Defamation standards | Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). | Insert the factual background that the parties rely on

(All documents are part of the public record; most are accessible through the PACER system or the Southern District of Texas’s docket‑search portal.)