As we recently reported, in its Final Rule banning most worker non-competes, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) previously warned of its intent to vigorously enforce its non-compete ban wherever possible, which may include self-styled nonprofit and not-for-profit entities. This warning threw most hospital systems in America, which are non-profit, into the chaos of unsettled expectations surrounding the current litigation
Continue Reading Code Red: AHA and FHA Acknowledge Industry Distortions to Emerge from the Threat to Regulate Nonprofit Hospitals Wherever PossibleTexas Court of Appeals Dismisses Trade Secret Case Against Defendant for Lack of Personal Jurisdictional
Establishing jurisdiction over a defendant is critical in every lawsuit. Trade secret cases are certainly no different. A recent appellate decision from Texas underscored this important point by dismissing a plaintiff’s claim against a defendant – who did not even deny that he received misappropriated trade secrets – for lack of jurisdiction.
The case is Joe Formicola v. Virtual Integrated…
Continue Reading Texas Court of Appeals Dismisses Trade Secret Case Against Defendant for Lack of Personal JurisdictionalTexas Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment in Physician Staffing Case Citing Lack of Damages Evidence
On January 4, 2023, the Dallas Court of Appeals in Texas affirmed a summary judgment in a trade secrets physician staffing case that stands as a warning to practitioners regarding (1) what constitutes sufficient damages evidence to survive summary judgment, and (2) whether something can be considered on appeal that has been sealed or subject to a confidentiality agreement.Continue Reading Texas Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment in Physician Staffing Case Citing Lack of Damages Evidence
Webinar Recap! How and Why Texas is Different When it Comes to Trade Secrets and Non-Competes
In the fifth installment of our 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Jesse Coleman, Matt Simmons, and Kevin Green discussed legal developments and trends in Texas trade secret and non-compete law and how it is similar to and diverse from other jurisdictions.
As a conclusion to this webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:
- A restrictive covenant is
Upcoming Webinar! How and Why Texas Is Different When It Comes to Trade Secrets and Non-Competes
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Central
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mountain
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Pacific
In the fifth installment of our 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, our team will cover recent legal developments and trends in Texas trade secret and non-compete law and how it…
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! How and Why Texas Is Different When It Comes to Trade Secrets and Non-Competes
Texas Supreme Court Confirms that HouseCanary Must Fly Toward a $201 Million Judgment or a Retrial
On June 17, 2022, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed a lower appellate court’s decision, (which we previously wrote about here), which nixed the plaintiff’s $740 million trade secret win at trial and required the plaintiff to either accept a $201 million breach of contract win (which the defendant decried as “jackpot justice”) or go back to trial on all claims.
Briefly, real estate startup HouseCanary brought suit against Title Source, Inc., now known as Amrock, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), fraud, and breach of contract. At trial, the jury awarded HouseCanary $740 million on its TUTSA and fraud claims and $201 million on its breach of contract claim. HouseCanary could elect to recover one or the other, and it elected to recover the $740 million. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the trial court decision regarding TUTSA and fraud based on deficiencies in the jury charge. The appellate court then found that the TUTSA, fraud, and breach of contract claims were inseparable, leaving HouseCanary with two options: to retry all of its claims or recover only the $201 million awarded on the breach of contract claim.
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Confirms that HouseCanary Must Fly Toward a $201 Million Judgment or a Retrial
Federal Court Provides Insight on Meaning of “Solicitation” and Plaintiff’s Burden on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
A federal court in Texas recently provided useful insights on what constitutes “solicitation” by a former employee under that employee’s restrictive covenant with his former employer, and the court provided further insights on what inferences courts will, and will not, draw in favor of a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction based on alleged misappropriation of trade secrets.[1]
The defendant worked for the plaintiff, Sunbelt, for over twenty years, primarily as a salesperson covering institutional customers.[2] As part of his employment, the defendant signed an employment agreement that, among other things, prohibited him from “solicit[ing]” Sunbelt’s customers or competing with Sunbelt within a certain geographic area.[3] He later left to join one of Sunbelt’s competitors. Sunbelt filed suit and sought a preliminary injunction, asserting that the employed had, among other things, solicited Sunbelt’s former customers, worked for Sunbelt’s competitor within the area prohibited by the non-competition agreement, and misappropriated Sunbelt’s trade secrets.[4]
Continue Reading Federal Court Provides Insight on Meaning of “Solicitation” and Plaintiff’s Burden on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Seyfarth Attorneys Author Article on Texas Trade Secret Lawsuit
Seyfarth partner Jesse Coleman and associate Kevin Green authored an IP Litigator article focused on a recent DTSA/TUTSA lawsuit which involved the public disclosure of alleged trade secret in an expired patent. Read the full article from the March / April 2022 edition of IP Litigator here.
Continue Reading Seyfarth Attorneys Author Article on Texas Trade Secret Lawsuit
Texas Oil & Gas Manufacturing Company’s DTSA/TUTSA Lawsuit Unraveled by Public Disclosure of Alleged Trade Secret in its Own Expired Patent
After a four day bench trial on August 10, 2021, a Houston federal judge ruled that the conceptual designs an oil and gas manufacturing company disclosed to its erstwhile collaborator under an NDA were not eligible for trade secret protection because they were neither secret nor misappropriated due predominantly to disclosure in a prior public patent. The ruling underscores the necessity that trade secrets are—in fact—kept actually secret. Moreover, any prior patent of the party seeking to protect its trade secrets should be scrutinized for similarity with the technology or information allegedly comprising a trade secret.
Continue Reading Texas Oil & Gas Manufacturing Company’s DTSA/TUTSA Lawsuit Unraveled by Public Disclosure of Alleged Trade Secret in its Own Expired Patent
Webinar Recap! How and Why Texas is Different When it Comes to Trade Secrets and Non-Competes
In the fourth installment of our 2021 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Jesse Coleman, Matt Simmons, and Kevin Green outlined recent legal developments in Texas trade secret and non-compete law and how it is similar to and diverse from other jurisdictions. The webinar also covered how these latest developments impact counseling, litigation, and deals involving companies with employees based…
Continue Reading Webinar Recap! How and Why Texas is Different When it Comes to Trade Secrets and Non-Competes