15 results for 'cat:"Trade Secrets" AND cat:"Attorney Fees"'.
J. Gooding holds that the trial court was within its discretion to award a company only part of its requested attorney fees. The company prevailed on a trade secrets claim and was granted injunctive relief against a former employee, but lost on other counts. The trial court must recalculate its fee award by determining the actual fees the company incurred to obtain injunctive relief. The company is also entitled to expert fees it paid to stop or mitigate damage from the misappropriation of trade secrets. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Gooding, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: G062056, Categories: trade Secrets, Damages, attorney Fees
J. Aspen partially grants the sued medical imaging equipment companies’ motions to reconsider the court’s earlier rulings in this trade secrets case. In those prior rulings, the court largely sided with the suing medical equipment companies by issuing a permanent injunction and civil contempt sanctions against the defendants, and ordering the latter to pay plaintiffs $2.4 million in attorney fees. Upon reconsideration, the court keeps the civil contempt sanctions in place and denies the motion to vacate the injunction, and also grants the plaintiffs’ motion for an additional $1.9 million in attorney fees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Aspen, Filed On: January 19, 2024, Case #: 1:19cv2648, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Health Care, trade Secrets, attorney Fees
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. Bowman grants, in part, the cleaning company's motion for sanctions, ruling the former employee's repeated refusals to comply with court orders regarding discovery has prejudiced the company and prevented it from preparing any type of defense to counterclaims filed by the employee. Therefore, the employee is ordered to appear at a telephonic conference on November 13 or face additional sanctions, while the company will also be awarded more than $10,000 in attorney fees.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Bowman, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv12, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Sanctions, trade Secrets, attorney Fees
J. Kobayashi finds in favor of a former employee of a laboratory services company accused by the company of violating a non-complete clause. The employee is entitled to attorney fees in the amount of $19,532 for his successful defense against the company's Defend Trade Secrets Act and Hawai'i Uniform Trade Secrets Act claims that were brought in bad faith. He is also entitled to unpaid wages of $354,000 pursuant to the jury's verdict and a civil penalty in the amount of $354,000, plus $84,000 in interest.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Kobayashi, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv310, NOS: Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, Damages, attorney Fees
J. Calabrese denies the competitors' motion for attorney fees, ruling that communications between the competitors and several principal agents of the company who filed suit for trade secret violations gave it legitimate reasons to pursue its lawsuit into the discovery phase, which prevents the award of fees for bad faith.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Calabrese, Filed On: September 19, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv1803, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, attorney Fees, Contract
J. Carnes finds that the district court properly granted the companies' motion to voluntarily dismiss an action against the executives in federal court for misappropriation of trade secrets. The companies' action came days before the executives sued in state court seeking a declaratory judgement affirming that restrictive covenants in their employment agreements were unenforceable and that they had been fired without just cause. The district court correctly denied the executives' request for attorney fees and costs and found that the executives could move for fees and costs if the companies refiled the federal action. Affirmed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Carnes, Filed On: August 14, 2023, Case #: 22-10048, Categories: trade Secrets, attorney Fees
J. Nye denies a former employee's motion for attorney fees. His former employer alleged that he breached the employment agreement when he took a job with a competitor. The court found that the severance agreement superseded the employment agreement and “extinguished the obligations set forth in the Employment Agreement and RCA,” therefore he did not breach the employment agreement. However, "the language of the Severance Agreement makes clear that [the employee] cannot recover attorney fees under the Employment Agreement and RCA."
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Nye, Filed On: July 18, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv244, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Employment, trade Secrets, attorney Fees
J. Aspen grants the plaintiff medical technology company’s motion for an injunction against the defendant medical tech firm and three of the plaintiffs’ former employees, which it poached, barring the sued firm from marketing X-ray tubes it made using the plaintiff’s proprietary information. The court also grants the suing firm over $2.4 million in attorney fees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Aspen, Filed On: July 13, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv2648, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: trade Secrets, Business Practices, attorney Fees
J. Pitman denies attorney fees to a semiconductor resale and intermediary company after it was sued by a competitor for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims. The competitor alleged that the company, which was formed by former employees, was using proprietary client information and other trade secrets stolen from it, but those claims have not entirely stood up to scrutiny in court, including after the Fifth Circuit determined that one former employee had “deleted the relevant … files” from his computer storage “before joining” the first company. That first company now moves for attorney fees on the grounds that the initial complaint was “objectively specious” and “bad faith,” but they cannot meet this high bar as the competitor had valid reasons for concern.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Pitman, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv377, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, attorney Fees, Technology