On September 14, 2012, the State Bar of California Intellectual Property Section presented its 2012 IP and the Internet Conference. The conference featured high level experts from companies such as Twitter, Yahoo!, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Salseforce.com, True Religion Brand Jeans, and Autodesk, who covered emerging issues and hot topics in intellectual property and Internet law. Below are a few highlights
Continue Reading Summary of the 2012 IP and the Internet Conference Presented by the State Bar of California
California Federal Court Transfers Trade Secret Dispute Involving High-Tech Gloves To New York
By Robert Milligan and Jeffrey Oh
In today’s dynamic environment of interstate commerce, including internet transactions, deciding on the proper venue for a trade secret misappropriation dispute can be a complicated process involving a number of different factors particularly if the parties are domiciled and/or transact business in different states.
In the case of GLT Technovations, LLC v. Fownes Brothers
Parties In High Profile Sports Agent Dispute In California Involving Trade Secret and Non-Compete Issues Throw Off The Gloves
The case of Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein & Associates d/b/a Priority Sports & Entertainment, recently filed in the Central District of California, provides an interesting look at both non-compete and trade secret law, as seen through the world of a sports agent.
Aaron Mintz, a National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) certified player-agent, allegedly resigned from Priority Sports & Entertainment on
Continue Reading Parties In High Profile Sports Agent Dispute In California Involving Trade Secret and Non-Compete Issues Throw Off The Gloves
Texas Appellate Court Voids, As Contrary to Fundamental Texas Law, Incentive Compensation Contract Imposing A Substantial Penalty For Post-Employment Competition With The Ex-Employer
Under Texas law, a restraint on competition without reasonable time and geographical limitations is unenforceable. Although New York generally disfavors an unreasonable non-competition covenant, there is an exception under the employee-choice doctrine. A recent Texas appellate court panel, applying Texas law, reversed a lower court order declaring valid under New York law an employment contract provision imposing a substantial penalty
New Ninth Circuit Case Aids Departing Employees In Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Disputes Involving Race To Judgment
Contractual choice of law provisions often seek to apply the law of the state that, when applied by a court to the contract at issue, is most likely to result in favorable interpretations, application, and/or enforcement of those provisions in the contract most valued by the contracting parties. However, when the law chosen is of a state different than the
Continue Reading New Ninth Circuit Case Aids Departing Employees In Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Disputes Involving Race To Judgment
Because Arizona’s “Fundamental Policy” Regarding Non-Compete Clauses Is So Different From That Of The State Of Washington, Arizona Federal Court Refuses To Enforce Clause’s Provision Calling For Applicability Of Washington State Law
Courts around the country are split as to the circumstances under which the parties’ choice of law set forth in a non-compete agreement will be honored. In a recent diversity jurisdiction case ruling, Arizona U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell recently refused to enjoin violations of a non-compete clause which said that the law of Washington State applied. He held that Arizona
Delaware Court Enjoins Use of Ex-Employers Trade Secrets
Delaware Court of Chancery Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster, faced with an unreasonable non-compete/non-solicitation agreement, indicated that he would have preferred to hold it invalid but said that he had no choice other than to modify its terms because its Maryland choice-of-law provision requires judicial “blue penciling.” He did enjoin the ex-employee from using his ex-employer’s customer list, a trade secret
Continue Reading Delaware Court Enjoins Use of Ex-Employers Trade Secrets