In June 2022, a federal judge sitting in the Southern District of New York issued an order denying defendants Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. (“Lionbridge”) and its parent company HIG Middle Market, LLC (“HIG”) attorneys’ fees and costs related to their assertion that plaintiff Transperfect Global, LLC (“Transperfect”) brought a misappropriation of trade secrets claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) in bad faith. The 2019 lawsuit was filed roughly 15 months after completion of a bidding war for the sale of Transperfect in a Delaware court-supervised auction. One of the participants in the auction was HIG, which had acquired Lionbridge—a competitor of Transperfect—in February 2017. In its suit, Transperfect alleged that HIG engaged in “fake bidding” during the auction so that it could access trade secrets in the form of confidential pricing data and customer lists and improperly share them with Lionbridge to poach two of Transperfect’s biggest clients.
Continue Reading No Fees for Failure to Show “Bad Faith” in Prosecution of Trade Secrets Claim
Seyfarth Attorneys to Participate at 2021 Annual Meeting of The Sedona Conference Working Group 12 (WG12) on Trade Secrets
Seyfarth Partners Robert Milligan, Erik Weibust, and Marcus Mintz, as well as senior associate Alex Meier will each be participating in the 2021 Annual Meeting of The Sedona Conference Working Group 12 (WG12) on Trade Secrets on December 13-14, 2021 in Phoenix, Arizona.
The mission of Working Group 12 is to develop consensus and nonpartisan principles for managing trade secret
Continue Reading Seyfarth Attorneys to Participate at 2021 Annual Meeting of The Sedona Conference Working Group 12 (WG12) on Trade Secrets
Location, Location, Location
As in real estate, as in law. A recent ruling in the USDC for the District of Colorado demonstrates that procedural considerations of where to file may often have substantive consequences. Plaintiff LS3, Inc. (“LS3”) sued Cherokee Federal Solutions, LLC (“CFS”) and various former employees of LS3 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The gist of the action was that CFS, a competitor of LS3, solicited away former employees of LS3 to work for CFS in violation of employee non-compete agreements. Claims were asserted against the individual employees for breach of the restrictive covenant agreements and against CFS for tortious interference with those same agreements. Critically, the agreements at issue all contained Maryland choice-of-law provisions but apparently no venue or forum provisions.
Continue Reading Location, Location, Location
What Employers Need to Know Regarding Illinois’ New Restrictive Covenant Law
On August 13, 2021, Governor Pritzker signed into law Public Act 102-0358, which amends the Illinois Freedom to Work Act and sets forth specific requirements for the enforceability of restrictive covenant agreements in Illinois for agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2022.
Income Thresholds
To be enforceable, as of the law’s effective date, non-compete agreements may only be
Continue Reading What Employers Need to Know Regarding Illinois’ New Restrictive Covenant Law
Cannabis Baker’s Plans of Own Business Potentially Put On Backburner
Earlier this month, Plaintiff Bright Side, LLC dba Herbal Edibles, a manufacturer of cannabis edibles, filed a lawsuit in New Mexico state court to enforce a 3-year non-compete and enjoin the misappropriation of its trade secret cannabis recipes by one its former bakers, Christina Johnson.
Based on the complaint, Ms. Johnson had been employed by Herbal Edibles as a baker for less than one year when she was terminated. Ms. Johnson allegedly started her own competing business, selling cannabis edibles such as “psychedelic sugar cookies” through Instagram and an open air market.
Continue Reading Cannabis Baker’s Plans of Own Business Potentially Put On Backburner
Failure to Tune in to Requirements to Meet Trade Secret Status Under Illinois Trade Secrets Act Results in Award of Attorneys’ Fees Against Radio Advertising Time Business
The Illinois Trade Secrets Act (“ITSA”), which is consistent with both other states that have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, allows the recovery of attorneys’ fees for a party who has been forced to defend against a trade secret claim made in bad faith. See 765 ILCS 1065/5. This fee shifting provision provides an important mechanism to obtain relief for defendants who are forced to incur significant legal fees fighting baseless claims.
Continue Reading Failure to Tune in to Requirements to Meet Trade Secret Status Under Illinois Trade Secrets Act Results in Award of Attorneys’ Fees Against Radio Advertising Time Business
Spam Trap Evading Plaintiff Falls into Statutory Preemption Trap under Delaware Trade Secret Act
Consistent with many jurisdictions which have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Delaware’s version expressly preempts common law claims based on the misappropriation of trade secrets. See 6 Del. C. § 2007. In a recent opinion, Vice Chancellor Slights of the Court of Chancery dismissed a claim for unjust enrichment based on defendant’s alleged misappropriation and use of plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary data because Delaware’s trade secret statute “occupies the filed” and preempts claims for common law unjust enrichment.
Continue Reading Spam Trap Evading Plaintiff Falls into Statutory Preemption Trap under Delaware Trade Secret Act
Ten Trade Secret Resolutions to Keep for 2021 and Beyond
2020 brought with it a bevy of new challenges for companies of all sizes in every industry, not the least of which was protecting trade secrets and confidential information in the face of newly remote workforces. 2021 brings with it new hope and the promise of a return to “normalcy”—whatever that may mean in this changed world. But companies must remain vigilant about protecting their trade secrets and confidential information. As we enter the new year, here are ten resolutions that companies should make—and keep—to accomplish that important goal in 2021 and beyond.
Continue Reading Ten Trade Secret Resolutions to Keep for 2021 and Beyond
Marcus L. Mintz Co-Chairs the ABA Litigation Section’s Restrictive Covenants/Tortious Interference Subcommittee
Seyfarth Partner Marcus L. Mintz was recently named as a co-chair of the Restrictive Covenants/Tortious Interference Subcommittee of the American Bar Association Litigation Section.
The Restrictive Covenants/Tortious Interference Subcommittee is part of the Business Torts & Unfair Competition Committee. The Committee and Subcommittee focus on keeping business litigators fully informed on issues and trends regarding fiduciary duties, fraud, unfair trade
Continue Reading Marcus L. Mintz Co-Chairs the ABA Litigation Section’s Restrictive Covenants/Tortious Interference Subcommittee
Don’t Play Chicken With Court Orders: COVID-19 Is No Excuse for a Terminated Franchisee to Continue Using the Franchisor’s Intellectual Property and Trade Secrets
In a decision of first impression issued last week, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee held, in Gus’s Franchisor, LLC v. Terrapin Restaurant Partners, LLC, that the COVID-19 pandemic did not excuse a terminated franchisee of Gus’s World Famous Fried Chicken (“Gus’s”) from complying with a temporary restraining order (TRO) and permanent injunction prohibiting it from using Gus’s trademarks, trade secrets and proprietary business information.
Continue Reading Don’t Play Chicken With Court Orders: COVID-19 Is No Excuse for a Terminated Franchisee to Continue Using the Franchisor’s Intellectual Property and Trade Secrets