332 results for 'cat:"Trade Secrets"'.
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. 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
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly denied the plaintiff child early development business's motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of fiduciary duty and breach of good faith claims against former employees who started a rival business. It is not against the law to secretly incorporate a competitive business prior to leaving an employer, but issues of material fact remain as to whether the employees used the employer's time, facilities or proprietary secrets to do so. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 01251, Categories: Employment, trade Secrets, Business Practices
J. Ellis grants the defendant marketing agents’ motion to dismiss RICO and Defend Trade Secrets Act violation claims brought by cryptocurrency developers. The developers hired the marketing agents to help them advertise their cryptocurrency and its associated hardware, only for the marketers to fleece them for as much money as possible, sometimes charging thousands of dollars for reasons that were never fully elaborated. They also failed to tell the developers that per a prior order from the FTC, they were not allowed to perform certain marketing activity. However, the court finds the developers have failed to show how the marketing agents' behavior amounts to racketeering or betrayal of trade secrets.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Ellis, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv708, NOS: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) - Other Suits, Categories: trade Secrets, Technology, Racketeering
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. Oliver grants the photographer's motion for summary judgment, ruling the school photography company cannot pursue actual damages for his solicitation of customers because it failed to submit the profit-and-loss statement during the discovery period, but waited until the summary judgment stage, which renders the evidence inadmissible. Meanwhile, the photography company's motion for summary judgment on the photographer's counterclaims will also be granted because the employment contract between the parties allowed the company to unilaterally change the photographer's compensation structure and prevents him from seeking unpaid commissions.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Oliver, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv666, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, Contract