42 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND 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. Jackson grants a request by a Texas-based electrical contractor, finding its Louisiana competitor in civil contempt of a nearly two-year-old court order barring its use of allegedly stolen trade secrets obtained from the litigant’s former employees. The competitor claims it was “blindsided” by its employee’s deposition testimony that he used tools and programs from his ex-employers to build materials for his new bosses. The competitor “may not rely on its supposed ignorance” of its employees' activities to avoid a finding of contempt. The competitor must immediately cease using all replicas of the litigant-contractor's protected information.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: Jackson, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv267, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: employment, Sanctions, trade Secrets
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
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. Starr denies, in part, a former employee's motion for summary judgment on a motorsports company's trade secrets and other claims. There are questions of fact regarding the company's claims for unfair competition, breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation, among others.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Starr, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv2180, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, Contract
J. Alonso alternatingly grants and denies multiple parties’ motions for summary judgment in this dispute over the plaintiff trucking company’s trade secrets. The company uses the password-protected “Sylectus” software program to make bookings and maintain customer relations. The company claims several of its employees, led by a former manager, used confidential data in the Sylectus system to jump start their own competing freight company and pull in almost $3.5 million in ill-gotten revenue. The company brought multiple trade secret misappropriation, fraud, breach of loyalty and conspiracy charges against the former employees and the new competitor, but the court found that only the breach of loyalty count against the former manager has been sufficiently alleged. The court dismisses all other defendants from the suit, while also granting the manager’s motion to bar certain expert testimony, denying the company’s motion to seal certain documents, and placing sanctions on the manager for deleting certain Dropbox files that can no longer be used as evidence in the company’s case.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Alonso, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv2903, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: employment, Sanctions, trade Secrets
J. Burkhardt grants a former senior account manager's motion to compel her former life science company employer to produce a modified version of an incentive plan document. The former employee, who is being sued for allegedly stealing trade secrets, sufficiently shows that the document would support her counterclaim for past due incentive rewards.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Burkhardt, Filed On: November 13, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv1952, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, Discovery
J. Sheridan allows employees to continue counterclaims stemming from trade secrets claims contending the company's proprietary information had been posted during discovery related to various complaints. The company seeks repayment of salaries paid to the employees, which could constitute retaliation, and whether the company sued other employees for failing to return laptops remains in dispute.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Sheridan , Filed On: November 2, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv16937, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, employment Retaliation
J. Burns finds that the trial court must stay trade secret litigation against a company that allegedly received confidential information from an employee it poached from a competitor. The stay should remain in force for the duration of arbitration proceedings between the employee and his previous employer, the competitor. However, the trial court was right that the company cannot require the arbitration of the previous employer's trade secret claims against the company because the company was not a party to an arbitration agreement. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Burns, Filed On: November 1, 2023, Case #: A165378, Categories: Arbitration, employment, trade Secrets
J. Hernandez denies the former employees' motion to strike allegations from the complaint, claiming they are statements made during settlement negotiations, from the outerwear company's lawsuit alleging the former employees downloaded numerous confidential documents from their work computers in violation of the non-competition provisions of their contracts. The former employees do not present enough evidence to clarify when the outerwear company made these allegations or when the negotiations began.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Hernandez, Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv594, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, Contract
J. Hollander grants a customer service agent his cross motion for summary judgment in a suit against him for breach of contract and trade secrets. After the temporary staffing firm the agent worked for promoted him several times, it transferred him to work at a subsidiary under which his service territory was limited. Consequently, he sought work with a competitor and shared certain information with it from his old position, and several customers followed him. The firm argues this is a breach of its non-solicitation covenant. However, the agent's interactions with a third-party software company while an employee of the competitor was outside the scope of his work for the firm and did not breach the covenant.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Hollander, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv686, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, Contract
J. Kinkeade denies, in part, an individual's motion to dismiss a consulting firm's trade secrets case, in which it claims the individual downloaded its proprietary information upon leaving the company to work for a competitor. The firm has sufficiently alleged its contract claim against him.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Kinkeade, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv2489, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: employment, trade Secrets, Contract