185 results for 'nos:"Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights"'.
J. Heil adopts the recommendation of the magistrate judge and enters default judgment in favor of the plaintiff company based on the alleged "destruction of evidence" in this lawsuit against a former employee. The employee argues that "sanctions are not warranted" due to a lack of prejudice to the company, but the court disagrees, finding that the company can no longer examine the deleted materials. The matter is returned to the magistrate judge to determine damages and fees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Oklahoma , Judge: Heil, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv525, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Employment, Sanctions, Contract
J. Africk grants requests by several corporations sued by a Louisiana manufacturer of protective coatings, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction claims they violated nondisclosure agreements in a business partnership to develop railcar coating. The litigant-manufacturer’s complaint does not allege any specific facts that show their previous business partners purposely directed activities at Louisiana, while signing an NDA with a Louisiana business does not establish the minimum contacts required for jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Africk, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv6394, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Corporations, Jurisdiction, Business Practices
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. 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
J. Russell partially grants cross-motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim in this ongoing suit concerning breach of contract and trade secrets between an insurer and a former employee. The employee argues the non-solicitation restrictions shouldn’t be enforceable because Maryland courts generally do not favor “agreements that restrict former employees from soliciting all clients of a former employer, rather than only those with whom the former employer worked directly.” However, the company does not allege the employee’s position within the company, her sales or exposure to customers making the agreement overbroad and unenforceable as matter of state law. The employee must answer the complaint.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Russell, Filed On: March 19, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv961, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, Trade Secrets, Contract
J. Whitney grants an engineering firm’s motion for preliminary injunction following allegations it brought against one of its former staff members for poaching the firm’s confidential information about customers, pricing and business plans two weeks ahead of his resignation. A business development manager at a firm affiliate reported the offense, and the staff member was found to have pilfered over 9,000 classified files.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Whitney, Filed On: March 12, 2024, Case #: 3:24cv234, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Trade, Negligence, Contract
J. Jackson grants the business owners' motion to dismiss a trade secrets dispute. The business owner and the income tax preparation service entered into an agreement in which the business owners would operate two locations. After the agreement ended, the income tax service accused the business owners of violating their contract by using confidential trade secrets to lure customers from the franchise to the new income tax service business they had started. The income tax service failed to identify a specific trade secret the new business used to steal their customers.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Judge: Jackson, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv355, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Trade Secrets, Tax, Contract
J. Nivison grants a pharmaceutical company’s motion for a letter request from the court that would require two New England companies to produce documents related to the pharma firm’s claims of misappropriating its confidential, proprietary information. While some aspects of the request need to be modified, overall it is focused and not overly vague.
Court: USDC Maine, Judge: Nivison, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv237, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Trade Secrets, Unfair Competition, Discovery
J. Hendrix refuses to dismiss, in part, claims filed by a bank against former employees who allegedly schemed to sabotage the bank by providing a "Bank in a Box" to a competitor. The bank has sufficiently alleged claims for civil conspiracy, unfair competition, breach of fiduciary duties and tortious interference.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Hendrix, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv44, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Unfair Competition, Fiduciary Duty, Banking / Lending
J. Pratter abstains from making any determinations in this commercial dispute between one furniture cleaner’s allegations that former employees stole its trade secrets in order to create a competitor. The suing cleaning company is a key marital asset in an ongoing divorce proceeding between the owners, so this court cannot involve itself in such proceedings, and thus will stay the case.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge: Pratter, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv2630, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Family Law, Trade Secrets, Jurisdiction