By Dan McCue

NORTH CHARLESTON -- Protected Vehicles Inc. of North Charleston came out swinging Thursday—at least in the court of public opinion—issuing a written statement charging that Force Protection’s lawsuit against it is “frivolous” and an attempt to “stifle lawful competition” vital to the war against terrorism.

The North Charleston armored vehicle manufacturer also announced that it has hired the Hood Law Firm to defend the litigation.

On Aug. 23, Force Protection Inc., of Ladson, sued PVI charging it with stealing trade secrets.

Force Protection is seeking injunctive relief, return of computer hard drives and other storage media it believes were taken from its facility by the defendants, damages and recovery of its court costs and attorneys’ fees.

The 29-page lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Charleston, asserts that Garth Barrett and other former Force Protection executives who left Force Protection two years ago to start PVI misappropriated confidential and proprietary information.

According to the lawsuit, much of the misappropriated information was taken from the company in external hard drives used to copy company documents and includes design details related to Force Protection’s ballistic- and blast-protected vehicles, as well as lists of suppliers for the raw materials that go into the armored, mine-resistant vehicles.

Force Protection alleged that Protected Vehicles relied on that information to “unfairly compete with the armored vehicles produced by Force Protection, in particular, the Buffalo, Cougar and the Cheetah.”

Both companies are among a growing number of manufacturers around the country vying for orders from the Pentagon, which is awarding production contracts for at least 8,000 mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs, as part of a $12 billion program.

Attorney Bobby Hood Jr. said PVI asked the court for an extension in the time it has to respond to the charges, and now has until Oct. 2 to do so.

He said the statement was issued because of the adverse publicity that accompanied Force Protection’s filing of the lawsuit, and “to protect the company’s interests.”

Hood said PVI “flatly denies any wrongdoing” in response to the specific charges contained in the lawsuit, and specifically about the alleged misappropriation of material through the use of external hard drives.

“My client intends to vigorously defend itself in this case,” he said. “In the meantime, it’s business as usual at the company’s facility and it continues to vie for federal contracts.”