13 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND cat:"Trade Secrets" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Starr denies, in part, a former employee's motion for summary judgment on a motorsports company's trade secrets and other claims. There are questions of fact regarding the company's claims for unfair competition, breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation, among others.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Starr, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv2180, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Hernandez denies the former employees' motion to strike allegations from the complaint, claiming they are statements made during settlement negotiations, from the outerwear company's lawsuit alleging the former employees downloaded numerous confidential documents from their work computers in violation of the non-competition provisions of their contracts. The former employees do not present enough evidence to clarify when the outerwear company made these allegations or when the negotiations began.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Hernandez, Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv594, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, contract
J. Hollander grants a customer service agent his cross motion for summary judgment in a suit against him for breach of contract and trade secrets. After the temporary staffing firm the agent worked for promoted him several times, it transferred him to work at a subsidiary under which his service territory was limited. Consequently, he sought work with a competitor and shared certain information with it from his old position, and several customers followed him. The firm argues this is a breach of its non-solicitation covenant. However, the agent's interactions with a third-party software company while an employee of the competitor was outside the scope of his work for the firm and did not breach the covenant.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Hollander, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv686, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, contract
J. Kinkeade denies, in part, an individual's motion to dismiss a consulting firm's trade secrets case, in which it claims the individual downloaded its proprietary information upon leaving the company to work for a competitor. The firm has sufficiently alleged its contract claim against him.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Kinkeade, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv2489, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, contract
J. McFarland grants the concrete company's motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling the financial statements taken by the former employee when he was fired undoubtedly constitute trade secrets, while his forwarding of the information to a personal email address establishes a violation of his noncompete agreement. Therefore, the company is entitled to an injunction to prevent further violations or any unfair competition.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: McFarland, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv345, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, contract
J. Mauro finds that the trial court properly denied an employee's Government Claims Act complaint, which he filed after being denied three $50,000 awards under an employee suggestion program, as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Mauro, Filed On: June 15, 2023, Case #: C094482, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, contract
J. Reynolds Fitzgerald finds that the lower court properly found for an insurance company in claims contending it lost clients when two agents left to start their own firm because the employment contracts contained nonsolicitation clauses, and the employer had a valid interest in protecting business that had been developed over the years. The court properly held that questions of fact remained as to whether liquidated damages constituted a legitimate estimate of lost business or represented an unenforceable penalty. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Reynolds Fitzgerald, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: 534011, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, contract