11 results for 'cat:"Trade Secrets" AND cat:"Interference With Contract"'.
[Consolidated.] J. Brody finds that one of two trial courts hearing aspects of the same dispute over allegedly poached employees and trade secrets abused its discretion when it increased an award from $1 million to $2.3 million, as the award was not the result of passion or prejudice, and its injunctive order was overly broad. The second trial court properly held that the preliminary injunction was overly broad and unenforceable since it restrained lawful conduct. Reversed in part.
Court: Idaho Supreme Court, Judge: Brody, Filed On: February 2, 2024, Case #: 49418, Categories: trade Secrets, Damages, interference With Contract
J. Bredar grants, in part, a financial service company’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting two of its former employees from sharing confidential information. The company has shown a likelihood of success on its claim that trade secrets were misappropriated when one of the employees downloaded confidential files and passed them onto the other former employee.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Bredar, Filed On: January 5, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv3446, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, interference With Contract
J. Kim partially grants the sued spinal implant manufacturer’s motions in limine against the suing spinal implant manufacturer. This dispute over two competing “expandable cage” spinal implant products that perform the same function will go to jury trial in January 2024. The suing manufacturer accuses the defendant of stealing its design. The court, on the defendant’s motion, bars the suing manufacturer from producing “ambiguous, misleading or new evidence of alleged trade secret misappropriation,” as well as making other claims about the defendant’s product. The court will allow other controversial materials and topics, such as the actions of the defendant’s parent company, to be brought up at trial.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kim, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv7092, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, interference With Contract, 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. Zilly denies the manufacturer's motion to dismiss the battery applications company's tortious interference with business expectancy counterclaim against the former's lawsuit, which alleges that the battery company stole and created a replica of the manufacturer's invention of a silicon-carbon composite for lithium-silicon batteries. The battery applications company reasonably alleges that the manufacturer contacted the former's potential customers and informed them about the claims in this supposedly meritless lawsuit, which would reasonably interfere with the battery applications company's business.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Zilly, Filed On: November 1, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1354, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, interference With Contract
J. Kennedy finds the lower court properly granted the former funeral home director's motion for summary judgment on misappropriation and tort claims. The funeral home's customer information regarding "preneed funeral contracts" was not a trade secret under Ohio law because it was provided to various employees and was available to the public through records requests. Meanwhile, because the tort claims brought by the funeral home were based on the same set of facts as the trade secrets claim, they were preempted. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Kennedy, Filed On: October 12, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3687, Categories: trade Secrets, Tort, interference With 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