121 results for 'cat:"Trade Secrets" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Jackson-Akiwumi finds that the lower court properly dismissed this trade secrets case, which was originally filed in Canada, against one of the defendants but not the other. One defendant's contract with the software company had a forum selection clause agreeing to litigate claims in Canada, but the other defendant's contract contained no such language. Reversed in part.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Jackson-Akiwumi, Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: 22-1583, Categories: trade Secrets, Jurisdiction, contract
J. Horan denies an individual's motion for a new trial or remittitur in an intellectual property action. The individual is accused of illegally accessing his former company's filesharing system to obtain marketing materials and sales leads, and hacking its website so that visitors are redirected to his new company's domain. The court finds that a $225,000 verdict in the company's favor is reasonable because the jury may discretely award "goodwill" and "consequential" damages under the Lanham Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Court: USDC Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge: Horan, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: 2:18cv165, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Remedies, 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. Welch finds that the trial court improperly ruled in favor of the intervening insurer in a dispute over whether a policy covers the loss of electronic data in the form of a company's stolen loan files. There was coverage for the data based on the fact it is "tangible property that can be subject to a loss of use." Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Welch, Filed On: August 1, 2023, Case #: 2022CA1252, Categories: Insurance, trade Secrets, contract
J. Cole finds the logistics company's failure to prove the former employee took any confidential information with him when he left to found a competing company and the lack of any specialized training skills it provided to the employee prevent it from prevailing on a portion of its trade secrets and contract claims. However, the relationships the employee formed with several clients allow the logistics company to enforce the non-solicitation provision of the parties' agreement; therefore, the employee is barred from any contact with those customers for a period of 313 days.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Cole, Filed On: July 31, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv164, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, contract
J. Chun dismisses the developer's alleging that Starbucks manufactured and sold the developer's coffee-flavored lip balm after the developer and Mehmet Cengiz, also known as "Dr. Oz," pitched the product under the promise of confidentiality. The developer's claim is time-barred because it filed this action after the applicable statutes of limitations expired, and neither statutory tolling or equitable tolling apply because the developer does not allege that its claims are statutorily tolled or contain bad faith allegations.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Chun, Filed On: July 26, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1501, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, contract
J. Pitman grants a motion by X Corp, the successor of Twitter, to remand to state court a convoluted dispute in which X Corp accuses a former employee of violating confidentiality agreements and the employee, in a putative class-action brought in California, accuses X Corp of "fail[ing] to pay bonuses owed" to him and other workers. While this legal dispute has multiple wrinkles, the goal of an injunction sought by X Corp is simply "the return of confidential information to Twitter," and because the former employee cannot show the sought injunction "is worth more than $75,000," this federal court does not have jurisdiction to hear this particular controversy.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Pitman, Filed On: July 25, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv778, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, Jurisdiction, contract
J. Hill finds a lower court properly dismissed an electronics company's trade secrets claims against an equipment manufacturer, who won a government contract bid to manufacture a technology test system. The electronics company argued that the equipment manufacturer infringed on its trade secrets in order to create a "price-competitive" proposal." However, the intellectual property involved in the proposal was already available to the public. Affirmed.
Court: Kansas Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hill, Filed On: July 21, 2023, Case #: 119,563, Categories: trade Secrets, Unfair Competition, contract
J. Calabrese grants the competitors' motion for summary judgment, ruling the trade secrets claim brought by the dietary supplement company is time-barred based on the knowledge it had of the competitors' intent to develop and sell similar products. The company knew the competitors had filed a competing patent application in February 2016 but failed to investigate further and did not file their lawsuit until more than four years later, outside the statute of limitations established under the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Calabrese, Filed On: July 18, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv1803, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Civil Procedure, trade Secrets, contract
J. Readler finds the lower court properly granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment in a misappropriation case. The lack of a confidentiality agreement between the creators of the annuity product and Nationwide Insurance prevents any misappropriation claim being brought against Prudential, which launched a similar annuity product shortly after several Nationwide employees accepted jobs there. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Readler, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: 22-3736, Categories: trade Secrets, contract
J. Sargus denies, in part, the former loan company employees' motion for summary judgment, ruling the loan company's evidence of credit pulls and loan documents the employees took with them to a competitor is sufficient to create an issue of fact and allow the tortious interference claim to go to a jury. Meanwhile, because none of the emails used to support the unfair competition claim include the names of both the loan company and the competitor, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim, and that portion of the employees' motion will be granted.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Sargus, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv5922, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, Damages, Interference With contract
J. Conti dismisses certain contract counterclaims brought against a competing aluminum manufacturer in claims arising from a licensing agreement that allows use of the competitor's aluminum pretreatment process in manufacturing Ford F-150 pickup truck bodies. The licensing agreement does not provide particulars about material pricing and "market forces," and both parties paid the same price for materials from the same supplier, with the exception that the competitor received royalties for the use of proprietary technology.
Court: USDC Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge: Conti, Filed On: July 13, 2023, Case #: 2:17cv1434, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: trade Secrets, Unfair Competition, contract
J. Robinson rules an acoustic hailing device company may pursue contract claims alleging that a former employee violated the company's Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement for Employees by refusing to turn over accounts, drawings and documents. Although two provisions of the agreement were previously found to be void and unenforceable, that does not make the entire agreement void. The agreement includes a severability clause explaining that if one provision is found to be void, it will not affect the other provisions of the agreement.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Robinson, Filed On: July 7, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv152, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, contract
J. Lasnik dismisses the cosmetics company's claim that the former salesperson allegedly shared a screenshot of a private company-related conversation with another affiliate, and that her alleged actions led to 5,500 employees quitting. There is no evidence that the former salesperson disclosed or otherwise used the cosmetics company's trade secrets. Even if she did, there is no evidence that her alleged actions led to the mass employee exit, as some left due to their friends being fired, some because the cosmetics company unilaterally changed its affiliate compensation plan, and others left before the former salesperson's alleged breach.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lasnik, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv145, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Evidence, 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. Barrett denies, in part, the HVAC company's motion for a preliminary injunction in trade secrets case, ruling the lack of evidence the former employee took any confidential information or materials that could be considered a trade secret is fatal to that portion of the company's suit. However, admissions by the employee that he solicited a former coworker within the noncompete period, regardless of the fact the coworker is a family friend, is sufficient to show a likelihood of success on that contract claim; therefore, an injunction will be issued to prevent any further communications between the employee and his former coworkers.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Barrett, Filed On: June 27, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv298, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: 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. Chuang denies an IT firm and two of its employees’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration on breach of contract, solicitation and trade secrets claims brought by a similar firm. One of the employees was ex-husband to the majority owner of the second firm and cousin to the majority owner of the first, and failed to return equipment or access to company emails when the first firm poached him. The first firm argues that according to an NOAA contract which hired both firms, arbitration must be implemented. However, the claims the second firm makes are not subject to the NOAA agreement nor its enforcement of arbitration.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Chuang, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv1587, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Arbitration, 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
J. Dorsey dismisses the aftermarket parts dealer’s counterclaim arising from the suit brought by the services company on allegations that the dealer breached its agreement to sell products to car dealerships by using confidential information to divert business. The dealer says that they are not alleging a private right of action but basing their claim for declaratory relief “upon the illegality of the … agreement.” No cited authority supports the declaratory relief claim, as pleaded, as capable of standing alone, and the dealer hasn’t demonstrated that amendment could cure the deficit. Dismissal causes no prejudice because the claim is entirely redundant of several affirmative defenses.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Dorsey, Filed On: June 6, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv1121, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, contract