332 results for 'cat:"Trade Secrets"'.
J. Nalbandian vacates the lower court's injunction against an insurance firm's former employee, finding the court failed to conduct the four-step analysis required under the Ohio Supreme Court's 1975 ruling in Raimonde v. Van Vlerah when it determined whether the insurance firm's non-solicitation agreement was enforceable. Although the client information taken by the employee was properly deemed a trade secret, the injunction's reliance on references to the non-solicitation agreement renders it defective.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 23-3638, Categories: trade Secrets, Contract, Injunction
J. Guzman finds that a company guilty of misappropriation of trade secrets committed misappropriation willfully and maliciously, but does not award exemplary damages even though they would be warranted. Punitive damages have already been awarded, so exemplary damages run the risk of being unfairly duplicative.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Guzman, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 4:21cv10572, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, Damages, Business Practices
J. Ellison finds that a case brought by a distributor of telecommunications products in which a manufacturer terminated an exclusive contract and directed the distributor’s customers to buy directly from the manufacturer can proceed to review an amended complaint from the distributor. The court awaits relevant information to be presented in the amended complaint that will determine if the distributor’s client list constitutes trade secrets.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Ellison, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv48, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: 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. Boulware denies the real estate broker's motion for summary judgment on multiple allegations against other brokerage entities involving theft of trade secrets stemming from nondisclosure agreements from a brokerage acquired from bankruptcy proceedings and the new employment of its brokers. There are disputed facts as to whether a new employer took intentional acts to disrupt the confidentiality provisions of a contract. Factual issues remain on key elements of the causes of action.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Boulware , Filed On: March 31, 2024, Case #: 2:15cv531, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Bankruptcy, Real Estate, trade Secrets
J. Boulware denies the bank's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. A property investor claims the bank committed trade secret misappropriation by using its customer lead list. The bank's insufficiency of evidence argument improperly focuses on select leads in the list as being publicly available, and, therefore, not secrets. However, evidence presented shows the list was confidential.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Boulware , Filed On: March 30, 2024, Case #: 2:15cv510, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Property, trade Secrets, Banking / Lending
J. Blakey partially grants the sued software development company’s motion to dismiss the suing software development firm’s copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract claims. The suing firm claims one of its former employees used his knowledge of its programs to develop an almost identical research software to the one it markets, and launched the software with his competing company. The court dismisses the suing firm’s confidentiality and non-competition agreement breach claim, but allows all its other allegations to go forward.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Blakey, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv676, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Copyright, trade Secrets, Technology
J. Snyder grants L'Oreal's motion for terminating sanctions in a patent dispute over a hair-coloring dispensing system. The court found that the accused products did not infringe upon the patent, and that the patent holder did not allege a trade secret and that the information in the patent could not be protected as a trade secret. L'Oreal asserts that documents presented in the first amended complaint were inauthentic. A forensic expert determined that some documents had been edited after litigation began. Evidence shows that the patent holder "acted willfully, in bad faith, and with fault by repeatedly fabricating, destroying, and withholding important evidence."
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 2:18cv364, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Patent, Sanctions, trade Secrets
J. Marshall grants in part a company's motion for the award of reasonable royalties in a trademark infringement dispute. A jury found in favor of the company for misappropriation of trade secrets and infringement of the company's registered trademark. The court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the infringer from disclosing the company's trade secrets or marketing or selling the infringing implant. For the misappropriation of trade secrets claim and a doctor's breach of the non-disclosure agreement, $5.7 is awarded as a reasonable royalty, $11.5 million in exemplary damages, and $1 million for the counterfeit mark claim.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Marshall, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv3503, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, Trademark
J. Connolly properly denied the fabric manufacturer's motion to dismiss counterclaims brought by a solar shade maker in a copyright dispute over the weaves, patterns, and colors co-produced by the companies in their 30 year partnership. The solar shade maker's counterclaims sufficiently plead that the restrictive covenants in the parties' agreements were enforceable. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Connolly, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 01744, Categories: trade Secrets, Business Practices, Contract
J. Antoon denies the employee's motion to transfer venue and stay proceedings in the employer's suit against him alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and breaches of his employment contract. The forum-selection clause in the contract was reasonably communicated to the employee and therefore is not invalid for overreaching, nor would enforcement of the clause contravene strong public policies of Florida. While the employee worked for the employer in, and now works for another employer around, Indianapolis, the localized nature of the controversies does not outweigh the forum-selection clause.
Court: USDC Middle District of Florida, Judge: Antoon, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 6:23cv2338, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Employment, trade Secrets, Venue