shutterstock_192971546Three very recent decisions reflect the irreconcilable division of judicial authority regarding the adequacy of at-will employment as the sole consideration for an otherwise valid non-compete.  Compare (a) Standard Register Co. v. Keala, No. 14-00291 (D. Haw., June 8, 2015) (adequate under Hawaii law) (“majority rule”), with (b) Hunn v. Dan Wilson

shutterstock_186292982In Illinois federal court, a plaintiff alleged aspects of their LinkedIn group were trade secrets misappropriated by the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion in part and granted in part, ruling that portions of social media groups may be protectable under the state’s trade

By Robert Milligan and Joshua Salinas

As part of our annual tradition, we are pleased to present our discussion of the top 10 developments/headlines in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law for 2013. Please join us for our complimentary webinar on March 6, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. P.S.T., where we will discuss them in

In a ruling announced a few days ago, Chief Judge Ruben Castillo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois adjudicated the validity of a non-compete clause in an employment agreement where the employee had worked for only 15 months and then resigned and began competing. Notwithstanding the latest word from the

Once a stalwart of adequate consideration in exchange for a restrictive covenant, new employment, remains in flux after the Fifield v. Premier case was not taken up by the Illinois Supreme Court recently. 

Fifield, decided in the summer of 2013 by the First District Appellate Court, held that in order for employment to be

Overview.  Non-compete and non-solicitation covenants in an employment agreement are not enforceable unless the restrictions are supported by adequate consideration.  Illinois courts have held that there “must be at least two years or more of continued employment to constitute adequate consideration in support of a restrictive covenant.”  No reported decisions from other states are in

The First District of the Illinois Appellate Court, in the case of Northwest Podiatry Center, Ltd., et al. v. Ochwat, et al., recently found that a trial court improperly enjoined physician-defendants in a few key respects. The decision serves as a reminder of how courts will closely scrutinize restrictive covenants in Illinois.

The case

An Illinois federal court recently found in the favor of the defendant on a plaintiff’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim because the plaintiff allegedly failed to satisfy the statute’s $5,000 damages threshold.

The plaintiff, a computer consulting servicing company which spent time restoring its client’s computer network (a Chicago law firm) after it was