shutterstock_78698299In recent weeks, courts almost routinely have been denying preliminary injunctive relief in cases alleging violation of non-compete and similar employment agreements.  Three examples: Burleigh v. Center Point Contractors, 2015 Ark. App. 615 (Oct. 28, 2015); Evans v. Generic Solution Engineering, LLC, Case No. 5D15-578 (Fla. App., Oct. 30, 2015); and Great Lakes

Plaintiff’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement in principle was denied because some material terms of that agreement were not included in the version the plaintiff sought to enforce.  GeoLogic Computer Sys., Inc. v. MacLean, Case No. 10-13569 (D. Mich., Dec. 10, 2014).

Status of the case.  Counsel for the parties to a software

Courts will decline to enforce contractual restrictive covenants in agreements that unreasonably restrain trade or lack adequate consideration.

Summary of the Case

Innovation Ventures (IV), developer of an energy drink, entered into contracts with a bottler and with a production consultant.  Both contracts contained non-compete and confidentiality clauses.  Shortly after the bottler’s and consultant’s business

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

By Jessica Mendelson and Robert Milligan

The Michigan Legislature recently passed the Internet Privacy Protection Act (“IPPA”), otherwise known as House Bill 5523. On December 28, 2012, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed the IPPA, making Michigan the fourth state to enact a social media privacy law regulating employers. In explaining the reasoning behind the law,

On August 9, 2012, a district court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed counterclaims of tortious interference with a business expectancy and conversion brought after the removal of a company’s Facebook page and the alleged loss of its more than 19,000 “fans.” (Lown Companies LLC v. Piggy Paint LLC, No. 11-cv–911 (W.D.

A U.S. District Court in Michigan recently granted partial summary judgment in favor of two individuals who were sued by their former employer, Dana Ltd., for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030 et seq

The individuals admitted that, prior to their departure from Dana but after accepting employment with a

Entities do not have the right to claim a privilege against self-incrimination. Accordingly, even though agents of a corporation may refuse, based on the Fifth Amendment, to comply with a court order requiring the individuals to submit an affidavit stating whether their principal has ever possessed specified products that allegedly embody purloined trade secrets, the corporation