A decision from the Northern District of Illinois is the latest to reiterate a stern warning we have long highlighted for employers: when insufficient steps are taken by an employer to protect its own proprietary information, courts will not provide trade secret protection when such information is misappropriated. In Abrasic 90 Inc. v. Weldcote Metals, … Continue Reading
In the past week, two states have made modifications to their respective non-compete laws. On March 27, 2018, Utah imposed special restrictions on the use of non-compete agreements in the broadcasting industry. One day later, Idaho modified the standard of proof that must be followed when a company seeks an injunction against a former employee … Continue Reading
In October and November of this past year, we wrote about two Minnesota court decisions – Mid-America Business Systems v. Sanderson et al., Case No. 17-3876 (Dist. Minn. Oct. 6, 2017) and Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier, Case No. A17-0360 (Minn. App., Nov. 6, 2017) — that addressed the adequacy of consideration that is provided … Continue Reading
In states that permit the enforcement of non-compete and other restrictive covenant agreements against former employees, companies must still demonstrate that the restrictions are designed to protect a legitimate business interest, and not to simply avoid ordinary competition. In Osborne Assocs. v. Cangemi, Case No. 3:17-cv-1135-J-34MCR (M.D.Fla. Nov. 14, 2017), the federal court for the … Continue Reading
The Minnesota federal district court recently refused to enforce a non-compete agreement, in part, because the employer failed to establish that the agreement was supported by valuable consideration. The decision, issued on October 6, 2017 in Mid-America Business Systems, v. Sanderson et. al., Case No. 17-3876, serves as an important reminder that, in Minnesota, there … Continue Reading
Misappropriation of trade secrets claims can sometimes be difficult to sustain. While evidence of the taking of a trade secret may be available, evidence of its subsequent use may not. In Integrated Global Services, Inc. v. Michael Mayo, Case No. 3:17cv563, by decision issued on September 13, 2017, the federal court for the Eastern District of … Continue Reading
In 2016 Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act, creating a federal cause of action for the theft of trade secrets. For a plaintiff attempting to prove that the information at issue is a trade secret, there is a tendency to focus only on the information itself, rather than the manner in which the plaintiff … Continue Reading
In a recent decision examining Kansas non-compete law, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas partially granted a company’s motion to enjoin its former employee’s violations of the non-compete and customer non-solicitation provisions of his employment agreement. The decision, in the matter of Servi Tech, Inc. v. Olson, highlights a number of key … Continue Reading
A May 11, 2017 decision by Judge Chang, in the Northern District of Illinois, found misappropriation alleged under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (ITSA), in a case where the employee downloaded files while still employed. Denying the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss a Third Amended Complaint, the Court examined … Continue Reading
There are so many stories about restrictive covenants being unenforceable in Wisconsin that it is refreshing to see a case where a restrictive covenant is enforced – especially at the preliminary injunction stage. This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted a preliminary injunction in favor of BMO Harris Bank, … Continue Reading
Businesses seeking injunctive relief to enforce non-competition agreements in Florida might be required to show the confidential information they seek to protect is neither unnecessary nor outdated, according to a recent ruling in Transunion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. Challa, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166346, Case No. 9:15-cv-91049 (S.D. Fla. March 23, 2016). The … Continue Reading
Athletic shoe manufacturer Nike filed suit on December 8, 2014 in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon against three of its former designers alleging that the designers misappropriated Nike’s trade secrets and conspired with Adidas to start a new, competing business venture. The three former designers, Denis Dekovic, Marc Dolce and Mark Miner, all resigned … Continue Reading
A recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey highlights the perils of delay before applying for injunctive relief. In PTT, LLC v. Gimme Games, et al. No. 13-7161 (JLL/JAD), PTT, a slot machine developer, sued competitor Gimme Games and former PTT executives who started Gimme Games, for misappropriation, … Continue Reading
We have previously written about tolling provisions on this blog. In a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz held that, under Minnesota law, non-compete terms do not automatically reset upon violation. The decision in U.S. Water v. Watertech of America, No. 13-CV-1258 (PJS/JSM), concerned a motion for a preliminary … Continue Reading
The inevitable disclosure doctrine is a common law doctrine that has been used by some courts to prevent a former employee from working for a competitor, even in the absence of a non-compete, because the former employee’s new job duties would inevitably require him to rely upon, use or disclose his former employer’s trade secrets. This … Continue Reading
Shawn Kee and Jessica Liss write on the Jackson Lewis website about two recent cases interpreting Missouri law on non-competes, Whelan Security v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. 2012) and TLC Vision (USA) Corp. v. Freeman, 2012 WL 5398671 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 2, 2012).… Continue Reading
A Federal Court in Nebraska issued a preliminary injunction enforcing an employee non-compete agreement in a case that explains, for the first time, what a Nebraska court may consider “solicitation.” The case, Farm Credit Services of America v. Opp, No. 8:12-cv-382 (D. Neb. 2013), involved a crop insurance salesman, Opp, who signed a non-compete agreement … Continue Reading
In the latest chapter of an ongoing dispute between Aon Risk Services and Alliant Insurance Services (stemming from Alliant’s hiring of dozens of Aon employees and accepting millions in annual revenue from former Aon clients), on January 10, 2013, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department issued a decision upholding key rulings of the … Continue Reading
A U.S. District Judge in Connecticut recently issued an injunction against a former employee of Amphenol Corp and his new employer, TE Connectivity, Ltd, despite the lack of any evidence of competition in breach of his non-compete agreement. The decision in Amphenol v Paul, Civ. No. 3:12cv543 (D. Conn. Nov. 9, 2012), involved a former business unit director of Amphenol who had been … Continue Reading
Tolling clauses in non-compete agreements extend the period of noncompetition by a period of time usually equal to the time an employee is in violation. Appellate courts in some states, including Illinois and Massachusetts, have affirmed injunctions based on contractual extension clauses. For example, in Prairie Eye Center v. Butler, No. 4-01-0005 (Ill. Ct. App. … Continue Reading
Kevlar (R), a high-strength para-aramid fiber created by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and famously used in body armor for soldiers and police officers, is the subject of a recent criminal indictment by the U.S. Justice Department against Kolon Industries, Inc. and several of its executives. According to the October 18, 2012 press … Continue Reading
