An employee entered into non-compete and confidentiality agreements with his employer. Following his resignation from that company, he went to work for a competitor. His job functions and territory with both employers were similar. In a suit for violation of the non-compete and confidentiality agreements, a Texas federal court held recently that — absent an injunction — disclosure to his … Continue Reading
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently denied a motion to dismiss a counterclaim for violation of Virginia’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“VUTSA”), holding that the counterclaim sufficiently alleged trade secret misappropriation based on improper acquisition of a trade secret, even in the absence of allegations of use or disclosure.
Plaintiff Jacqueline … Continue Reading
In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and other claims, Judge Hillman of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts recently granted a former employer’s motion for a preliminary injunction against three defendants who allegedly stole trade secrets from the plaintiff, without a showing that the defendants actually used that information for … Continue Reading
A recent Illinois trade secrets and non-compete decision involving a 3D printing salesman serves as a reminder that some Illinois courts will scrutinze overly broad non-compete provisions and may limit injunctive relief to the territory that the employee actually serviced for their former employer. Fisher/Unitech, Inc. v. Computer Aided Technology, Inc., Case No. 13 C 2090 (N.D.Ill., 4/9/13).
Preliminary injunction … Continue Reading
On June 19, 2012, a Massachusetts federal court declined to apply an expansive interpretation of the inevitable disclosure doctrine during a preliminary injunction ruling, finding that the rule is best applied to establish irreparable injury supporting enforcement of a non-competition agreement and not as the basis for a future misappropriation of trade secrets claim.
In U.S. Elec. Svcs., Inc. v. Schmidt, … Continue Reading
In Moore v. Commercial Aircraft Interiors, 2012 WL 1947890 (Wash. Ct. App., May 29, 2012), a Washington Appeals Court held that a former employee suing his former employer for tortious interference with business expectancy must show actual evidence and not simply conclusory statements of his alleged former employer’s improper purpose, in order to recover.
Robert Moore (“Moore”) worked for … Continue Reading
Throughout 2010, Seyfarth Shaw LLP’s dedicated Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes practice group hosted a series of webinars that addressed key issues facing clients today in this important and ever changing area of law. The series consisted of five webinars: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: What You Need to Know, Protecting the Secrets in Your Employees’ Heads, Trade Secret … Continue Reading
On July 27, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s order enjoining a senior executive from Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., from working for one of Bimbo’s competitors, Hostess, until after the district court resolved the merits of Bimbo’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim against the executive. Among other trade secrets at issue in … Continue Reading
When explaining to lay people what we do, trade secret practitioners often use the classic examples of the formula for Coca-Cola or KFC’s secret recipe of eleven herbs and spices. Now, we can add as an illustration the nooks and crannies of Thomas’ English Muffins, as demonstrated by a case filed by Bimbo Bakeries (“BBakeries”) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. BBakeries, … Continue Reading
When we last wrote about IBM’s efforts to enjoin David Johnson, its former Vice President of Corporate Development, from joining Dell, Judge Stephen Robinson of the Southern District of New York had denied IBM’s second motion for preliminary injunction and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was preparing to hold oral argument on the matter. The Court of Appeals … Continue Reading
In an article published today by the Daily Journal, “Economy Leads Companies to Sue Ex-Workers,” (linked with permission) author Laura Ernde talks with a number of California practitioners about what they see happening with trade secrets litigation in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Edwards v. Arthur Anderson and the economy.
Although Ernde indicates that … Continue Reading
By Kate Perrelli and Erik Weibust
On October 7, 2009, the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development held a hearing on a non-compete bill, House No. 1799, sponsored by Representatives Will Brownsberger and Lori Ehrlich. Representatives Brownsberger and Ehrlich had each previously sponsored their own independent bills – Brownsberger’s based on California’s statute that bans non-compete agreements altogether, … Continue Reading
Katherine (Kate) Perrelli (a Seyfarth Shaw partner in Boston) recently published an op-ed, “Is Banning Non-Competes the Answer for Massachusetts?” in the September 21, 2009 issue of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. In her article, Kate discusses two bills addressing non-competition agreements that are currently pending in the Massachusetts legislature; one bill would enforce reasonably tailored non-competes, while the other would … Continue Reading
The California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, 2d Civil No. B209964, 2009 WL 1653103 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. June 15, 2009), affirming a $1.6 million attorney fee award to defendants upon a finding that the action was brought in bad faith, provides a useful and interesting discussion of various factors that may lead a … Continue Reading