8 results for 'cat:"Trade Secrets" AND cat:"Jurisdiction" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Hopkins denies the former employee's motion to dismiss, ruling that while she was a remote employee based in Idaho, she reported to a Kroger supervisor based in Ohio, traveled to Ohio several times throughout her employment and communicated with Ohio-based coworkers on a daily basis, all of which grants this court jurisdiction over Kroger's claims for misappropriation of trade secrets.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Hopkins, Filed On: February 16, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv816, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, jurisdiction, contract
J. Watson grants one of the motions to dismiss filed by a former employee, ruling the district court lacks jurisdiction over Robert Sapio because he has not traveled or communicated with any business in the state of Ohio such that it caused any harm to the parts distribution company. However, because the forum selection clause in each of the other employees' contracts is enforceable based on the distribution company's location in Ohio, the contract and trade secrets claims against those employees will proceed.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Watson, Filed On: December 14, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv4049, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, jurisdiction, contract
J. Mills grants the compliance company's motion to transfer the bank's complaint to the Central District of California, where the company is pursuing a trade secrets complaint against the bank. The company filed its complaint in California first and it is "apparent that the California lawsuit and this case are, in many respects, two sides of the same coin."
Court: USDC Northern District of Mississippi , Judge: Mills, Filed On: October 31, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv139, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, jurisdiction, contract
J. Tostrud grants motions to dismiss brought by two of the three defendant chemical manufacturers in a competitor's suit alleging that they misappropriated confidential information and trade secrets related to bovine teat-dip products which were made available to them under a license agreement with the competitor's predecessor. Neither of the two manufacturers has sufficient contacts with Minnesota to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction, and the competitor has not established that their alleged misappropriations were "uniquely or expressly aimed" at Minnesota. The competitor's request for jurisdictional discovery and an opportunity to supplement the record as to jurisdictional issues is denied, as is its motion to redact the transcript of a hearing on these motions.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv479, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, jurisdiction, contract
J. Lin dismisses the video game publisher's claim that two of its former employees created a competing game using confidential information from the "P3" game they began developing for the publisher. The former employees signed a forum selection clause and their alleged conduct is closely related to the contract containing the clause. Korea is also the more convenient forum, as most of the witnesses and evidence are located in Korea or written in Korean.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lin, Filed On: August 17, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv576, NOS: Copyrights - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, jurisdiction, 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. 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. 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