Can Oregon employers bring conversion claims against employees who misappropriate confidential information without having their claims preempted by the state’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act? According to a recent Oregon federal district court opinion, the answer is “yes”; however, in several other states, the answer is “no”.
This result highlights the continued divergence of opinion across the nation
A Virginia federal court district court recently issued a significant decision awarding lost profits to an aggrieved employer for breach of fiduciary duty by a former employee. The Court found that the ex-employee was not able to deduct his services for the company as an expense against the damages award. Further, the Court found that the employer’s
Continue Reading Virginia Federal Court Finds For Employer on Fidicuary Duty Claim Against Former Employee
In a recent ruling, a West Virginia federal judge held that litigation involving a former employee’s claimed violation of covenants not to compete and not to solicit the ex-employer’s workers must proceed to trial even though the ex-employer produced no evidence of monetary loss. Relying on 76-year old and 118-year old West Virginia cases neither of which concern similar
Continue Reading Are Non-Competition And Non-Solicitation Provisions In An Employment Agreement Enforceable Despite The Absence Of Compensable Damages?
We previously blogged in our 2011 year end review about a noteworthy trade secret misappropriation case where DuPont Co. successfully obtained a jury verdict of approximately $920 million in damages against rival Kolon Industries Inc. DuPont sued Kolon for the alleged theft of trade secrets regarding a proprietary fiber used to make “bulletproof” police and riot gear.
Yesterday, U.S. District
Continue Reading Extraordinary 20-Year Global Injunction For “Bulletproof” Trade Secrets Theft
When a plaintiff alleging trade secret misappropriation obtains a judgment for substantial damages, the award may serve solely to compensate for past wrongs, or it may redress both past and future injuries.
The plaintiff filing a post-trial motion for the entry of a permanent injunction presumably is claiming that the defendant’s continued use of the misappropriated trade secrets will cause
Continue Reading Considerations In Determining Whether To Grant To A Prevailing Trade Secret Misappropriation Plaintiff A Permanent Injunction In Addition To Substantial Damages
.jpg)
In its latest opinion dealing with trade secret issues, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Va. Code §§ 59.1-336 through 343 ("VUTSA") protects trade secrets even if they are used by an entity that is not demonstrably "in competition with" the plaintiff. Collelo v. Geographic Services, Inc., No. 101411, 101421. The
A manufacturer engaged an independent contractor to improve the efficiency of certain machinery. After the task was completed, the contractor did the same for a competitor of the manufacturer. The manufacturer, claiming that the improvements were its trade secrets, sued the competitor in an Ohio state court for misappropriation. The case went to trial before a jury which returned a verdict
By Molly Joyce
In the recent decision of The Capability Group, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.,658 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2011), the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, affirmed summary judgment in favor of a defendant accused of, among other things, breaching a confidentiality agreement between the parties. The court found that the plaintiff,
Continue Reading First Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Defendant Accused of Breaching Confidentiality Agreement
Clarifying the legal principle that an injunction will only be entered if there is no adequate remedy at law, the Ohio Court of Appeals held recently that an award of damages for past trade secret misappropriation is not inconsistent with, and does not preclude granting, injunctive relief to prevent future harm. Litigation Management, Inc. v. Bourgeois, 2011 Ohio 2794
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) requires, among other things, that a plaintiff demonstrate a “loss” of $5,000 or more. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I).
In Animators at Law, Inc. v. Capital Legal Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-CV-1341 E.D.Va. (May 10, 2011) (unpublished) (TSE) two former employees of Animators’ abruptly left to join
Continue Reading Outside Counsel Fees May Be a Qualified Loss to Meet the CFAA’s $5000 Jurisdictional Requirement
