185 results for 'nos:"Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights"'.
J. Blackwell denies the cookie dough franchisor's motion for a preliminary injunction preventing its former franchisee from operating a competing cookie dough business. The franchisor has not established harm from consumer confusion, and its current inability to sell franchises in Minnesota means that any frustration of that ability caused by competition is speculative. A claim that irreparable harm will result from other franchisees taking the franchisee's lead in disregarding the terms of their agreements is similarly speculative. The franchisor's likelihood of success on the merits of its claims is also diminished by a lack of clarity as to whether the noncompete provision serves a legitimate purpose when the franchisor cannot compete in Minnesota.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Blackwell, Filed On: August 1, 2023, Case #: 0:23cv1552, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Contract, Injunction
J. Seeger partially grants a pair of former executives' motion to dismiss fraud, conversion and conspiracy charges brought by the packaging company they once led. The company filed the charges against the former executives, both of whom it previously let go, after discovering they had set up a digital back door into its confidential files. This back door, in the form of a bogus employee email account, allowed the executives to access company information long after they had been let go. The company has plausibly alleged its fraud claims, but its conversion and civil conspiracy claims are both blocked by the Moorman doctrine.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Seeger, Filed On: July 26, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv6858 , NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Fraud, Trade Secrets, Conversion
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. 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 The court found that the severance agreement superseded the employment agreement and “extinguished the obligations set forth in the Employment Agreement and RCA,” therefore he did not breach the employment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. 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. 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. 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. Robart grants the biopharmaceutical company's request for judicial notice of a March 2023 order from the High Court of Judicature in Bombay, India, regarding its complaint alleging that the multinational pharmaceutical company took credit for the biopharmaceutical company's development of a Covid-19 vaccine. To give the biopharmaceutical company's Indian counsel time to depose seven Indian witnesses in accordance with the March 2023 order, the jurisdictional discovery deadline is extended by 25 days.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Robart, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv334, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Trade Secrets, Discovery, Covid-19
J. Carter affirms the Magistrate's decisions regarding discovery orders in this suit alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, tortious interference and unfair competition in relation to the employee's alleged wrongful retention or copying of certain confidential and proprietary information obtained during his employment. There is a factual dispute regarding whether the employee joined a competing business or strictly communicated with it. The court sets aside and refers, for reconsideration, to the Magistrate the issues of the risk management service's motion to compel deposition testimony on communications made during settlement negotiations and the employee's proposed third-party subpoena to the competing business.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Carter , Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv3687, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Employment, Trade Secrets, Business Expectancy
J. McCook grants the plaintiff company's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in this action alleging violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as well as breach of a non-disclosure agreement. The plaintiff company seeks to add new parties to the litigation, including seven new defendants, and there was no "undue delay" in the request.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: McCook, Filed On: June 13, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv288, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, Trade Secrets
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
J. Coulson partially denies a pharmaceutical contract service provider its motion for protective order to limit a vaccine manufacturer’s second amended notice in a trade secrets suit. Litigation began when an employee allegedly shared trade secrets from the provider when the manufacturer hired her. Since then, the manufacturer has succeeded in having the initial suit against it dismissed for the provider’s failure to state a claim. As part of discovery, the manufacturer has made a litany of requests, most of which are legitimate and will proceed in its second amended notice.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Coulson, Filed On: June 7, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv1959, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Trade Secrets, Discovery
J. Brennan grants the motion for summary judgment filed by a co-founder of the health care facilities, ruling the documents taken by the co-founder shortly before he transferred his ownership interest and left the business do not qualify as trade secrets because they had no independent economic value. Therefore, the trade secrets claim fails as a matter of law, while the remaining state law claims must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Brennan, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 5:21cv1070, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Health Care, Trade Secrets, Jurisdiction