AirPro appeals ruling, cites unfair competition claim against Opus, Drew Technologies

In AirPro Diagnostics latest filing to appeal a lower court’s ruling on a lawsuit against Opus IVS and its subsidiary, Drew Technologies, the company argues that it has a viable claim for unfair competition.

AirPro alleges that Drew breached the parties’ contract and that the defendants engaged in unfair competition, tortiously interfering with AirPro’s business expectancies. Drew company, AutoEnginuity, and Opus CEO Brian Herron (former Drew president) are also named defendants in the case.

In October 2023, Opus and Drew countersued, denying all allegations against them, including breach of contract, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business expectancy. Opus also countersued AirPro, alleging breach of contract and unfair competition.

In October 2025, U.S. District Judge Linda V. Parker ruled that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on AirPro’s breach of contract, tortious interference, and unfair competition claims, and that AirPro is entitled to summary judgment on Opus’s breach of contract and unfair competition counterclaims.

Now, AirPro says in a March 20 appellant brief that it has proven “a very clear pattern of conduct by defendants that is the antithesis of ‘fair play.'”

“It was therefore [an] error for the District Court to grant summary judgment with respect to this claim,” the brief states.

Instead, AirPro argues that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit should grant it summary judgment.

It asks the court to rule on whether the District Court:

• • “Erred in granting summary judgment on AirPro’s breach-of-contract claim by failing to properly apply the MPA’s
    contractual burden-shifting provision and disregarding Airpro’s proffered evidence;
  • “Erred in granting summary judgment on AirPro’s tortious interference claim by improperly resolving disputed issues of fact regarding Defendants’ intent, despite circumstantial evidence that Defendants surreptitiously modified the EULA to target AirPro’s business model; and
  • “Erred in granting summary judgment on AirPro’s unfair competition claim by merely incorporating its tortious interference analysis without performing a standalone analysis under the less stringent “fair play” standard applicable to unfair-competition claims.”

“Defendants bear the burden of proof as to AirPro’s breach-of-contract claim, while AirPro bears the burden as to its other claims,” the brief states. “For all claims, however, AirPro’s evidence ‘is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [AirPro’s] favor.’

“Perhaps most importantly for purpose of this appeal, when questions of intent and motivation are central to the claims at issue, summary judgment is not appropriate.”

AirPro disagrees with the District Court’s dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim because it applied the wrong burden of proof and didn’t account for AirPro’s evidence.

“The MPA [mutual party agreement] between the parties contains an express burden-shifting provision that places the burden on defendants to prove, through competent evidence, that they independently developed any works related to the confidential information AirPro disclosed,” the brief states. “Because defendants bore the burden of proof on this issue, they were required to meet a more rigorous summary-judgment standard under this court’s precedent — that is, they had to show that their evidence was so powerful that no reasonable jury would be free to disbelieve it.

“Defendants failed to meet this standard. The record contains substantial circumstantial evidence that defendants used AirPro’s confidential information to develop competing products, and the District Court improperly placed the burden on AirPro to prove misuse.”

As for its tortious interference claim, AirPro argues that the District Court erred in dismissing it by improperly resolving disputed issues of fact regarding the defendants’ intent.

“The evidence establishes that Opus acquired AutoEnginuity — AirPro’s software provider — and then surreptitiously amended the EULA [end-user license agreement] to target AirPro’s business model, all while assuring AirPro that nothing had changed. The timing of these events, combined with evidence that Opus actively assisted Ford in its lawsuit against AirPro, creates at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants’ actions were a guise for improperly interfering with AirPro’s business relationships. This kind of circumstantial evidence of motive and intent — such as the timing of events — is sufficient to defeat summary judgment on claims involving subjective intent.”

AirPro also argues that the District Court erred in dismissing its unfair competition claim by incorporating its erroneous tortious interference analysis without performing the required standalone analysis.

“Unfair competition requires only a showing of conduct contrary to ‘fair play’ — a far less stringent standard than that applicable to a tortious interference claim,” the brief states. “The evidence that Defendants secretly modified the EULA to target AirPro’s entire business model, refused to engage with AirPro’s good-faith attempts to address their concerns, and ultimately terminated AirPro’s software license — all while AirPro’s competitor controlled the lifeblood of its business — clearly raises issues of fair play that must be resolved by a jury.”

As of Friday, Opus had not filed a response to the brief.

Another lawsuit, filed in Florida, against Opus and AutoEnginuity alleges that AutoEnginuity shared confidential and proprietary information with Opus.

Doing so breached confidentiality/noncircumvention and third-party beneficiary agreements with AirPro, according to the complaint.

AirPro also claims that Opus and AutoEnginuity misappropriated trade secrets under Florida’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The complaint alleges fraud and unjust enrichment. AirPro seeks permanent injunctive relief and declaratory judgment.

In their answer to the suit, Opus and AutoEnginuity denied that they were aware that the tools and information were confidential and proprietary to AirPro. They also denied receiving or disclosing any purported confidential information of AirPro.

The case was stayed on March 4 pending the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision.

Images

Featured image credit: Alexander Sikov/iStock