In many cases, the execution of a mutual release is often the last step in resolving a trade secret or non-compete case.  Typically included in the release is an affirmation that all confidential information has been returned and the once former adversaries promise not to sue one another.  Once the release is executed, the fight is usually over.  Usually, but
Continue Reading When “The End” Is Not “The End”: Asserting Trade Secret Claims After The Execution of a Mutual Release

District courts are divided as to whether there is a private right of action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for persons whose computer service is not interrupted but who nevertheless incur costs (a) responding to a CFAA offense, (b) conducting a damage assessment, or (c) restoring computerized data or programs as they were prior to the offense.
Continue Reading Courts Disagree on Meaning of “Interruption of Service” When Determining Loss Under the Computer Fraud And Abuse Act

Notwithstanding a forum-selection provision in the parties’ consulting agreement designating the Northern District of Georgia as the place for litigating non-competition and non-solicitation covenants disputes, a Georgia federal judge transferred covenant violation litigation to the Middle District of Florida. Also, the judge explained why he thought that an arbitration clause was unenforceable, but he said that the Florida court should
Continue Reading Georgia Federal Court Disregards Forum Selection Clause In Non-Compete And Non-Solicitation Covenant Dispute

By Bob Stevens and Dan Hart.

Three years ago last week, Georgia voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that substantially altered Georgia’s public policy on restrictive covenants.

Prior to enactment of the amendment, Georgia’s public policy was actively hostile to restrictive covenants in employment agreements — so much so that a provision of the state constitution enshrined the state’s
Continue Reading Top Five Trends in Georgia Restrictive Covenants Law Three Years After Constitutional Amendment

Summary.  Marguerite and her two daughters were the members and managers of an LLC.  On behalf of the LLC, Marguerite negotiated and executed a contract to sell its assets to N&N Holdings.  The contract contained a covenant providing that “neither Seller nor its agents” would compete with, or solicit customers or employees of, the buyer during specified periods in a
Continue Reading Georgia Court Rules That Non-Compete Does Not Bind Seller’s Agents

Please join us for our sixth trade secrets webinar of the year entitled Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Legislative Update.

The webinar will be September 20, 2012 from noon to 1:00 p.m. central.

The past year has seen significant statutory changes to several jurisdictions’ laws regarding trade secrets and restrictive covenants and pending legislation proposed in additional jurisdictions. As trade
Continue Reading Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Legislative Update Webinar On September 20, 2012

By Daniel Hart and Bob Stevens

Friday, May 11, 2012 marked the one-year anniversary of Georgia’s new Restrictive Covenant Act ("New Act"). As we have written on this blog before (here and here), passage of the New Act marked a dramatic change in Georgia’s public policy regarding restrictive covenants in employment agreements. Prior to passage of the New

Continue Reading Georgia’s New Restrictive Covenant Act Turns One Year Old

Thanks to a recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, the assignee of confidential and proprietary information has found itself in a Catch 22 dilemma, precluded from suing under the state’s trade secrets statute because the information did not qualify as trade secrets but prohibited by that statute from bringing related common law claims. Robbins v. Supermarket Equipment Sales, LLC,
Continue Reading No Cause of Action Under Georgia’s or Utah’s Trade Secrets Statutes for Misappropriation of Confidential and Proprietary Information Not Qualifying as Trade Secret

By Bob Stevensand Daniel Hart

As we have discussed on this blog before, on May 11, 2011, Georgia reissued its new Restrictive Covenant Act (the “New Act”). The New Act reflected a fundamental change in Georgia’s law regarding restrictive covenants because it permitted Georgia courts to “blue pencil” (i.e., partially enforce) restrictive covenants that otherwise would be overbroad and

Continue Reading Georgia Court Blue Pencils / Rewrites Overbroad Restrictive Covenant

By Dan Hart

As we have written on this blog before, on May 11, 2011 Georgia reissued its new Restrictive Covenant Act (“New Act”) in order to resolve concerns about the constitutionality and effectiveness of a nearly identical statute that the state’s legislature had previously enacted in 2009. The 2009 version of the statute was contingent on voters’ approval
Continue Reading Federal Court Reverses Prior Decision on Retroactive Impact of New Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act