Since the much-discussed Fifield case from the Illinois appellate court two years ago, all that could be said with confidence was that, unless someone was employed for at least two years after signing a restrictive covenant agreement, its enforceability was highly questionable. Practitioners in Illinois have been recommending that employers provide consideration in addition to
Reminder From the 7th Circuit: Don’t Put the Cart Before the Horse (Establish your Legitimate Interest in Need of Protection Before you Complain About the Breach of a Non-Compete)
In the rush to the courthouse after an executive leaves, takes people with her, and opens a competing business, the spurned employer often relies on the promise that executive made—the noncompete agreement—and the undisputed breach of that promise and believes the court will provide a remedy. “Not so fast,” is the takeaway from the 7
Wisconsin Non-Compete Waters Just Got Muddier
On April 30, 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Runzheimer Int’l, Ltd. v. Friedlen, settling a dispute in Wisconsin over whether continued employment alone was sufficient to bind an employee to a non-compete agreement. The case involved an important, if nuanced, distinction between (a) whether there is a legal “agreement”
Company Pays For Taking Short Cuts to Start New Business
A New Jersey state court judge has allowed a $10 million jury verdict to stand in favor of biotech firm GenScript USA in its trade secret and employee piracy claims against competitor, Genewiz, Inc. In October 2014, the jury had entered a multi-million dollar verdict in GenScript’s favor following a six-week trial. The jury found
Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment on the Pleadings in Arkansas Non-Compete Case
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court decision granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant in non-compete dispute based on Arkansas law. The decision in NanoMech, Inc. v. Suresh rested in part on the fact that the non-compete did not include a geographic limitation and was otherwise overbroad as it would
Nike Lawsuit Against Former Designers Will Test Company Security Initiative
Athletic shoe manufacturer Nike filed suit on December 8, 2014 in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon against three of its former designers alleging that the designers misappropriated Nike’s trade secrets and conspired with Adidas to start a new, competing business venture.
The three former designers, Denis Dekovic, Marc Dolce and Mark Miner, all resigned
California Court Considers Customer Lists, LinkedIn Contacts, in Trade Secrets Case
A federal district court for the Central District of California has issued a detailed decision regarding customer lists and LinkedIn contacts in ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment in the trade secrets dispute captioned Cellular Accessories For Less, Inc. v. Trinitas, LLC, No. CV 12-06736 DDP, including a surprising ruling that LinkedIn contacts might
Illinois Federal Court Questions Fifield
A recent Illinois federal court decision has called into question the much begrudged holding from the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District, First Division, in Eric Fifield and Enterprise Financial Group, Inc. v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., 373 Ill. Dec. 379, 993 N.E. 2d 938 (Ill. App. Ct. June 24, 2013).
The Fifield
Ohio Appellate Court Sporks Plaintiff in Plastic Cutlery Non-Compete Dispute
An Ohio appeals court recently held that an employee did not breach his non-competition agreement by creating his own business in the same industry as his former employer, despite the fact that the former employee contacted clients of his former employer and began compiling an inventory during his restricted period. Berk Enterprises, Inc. v. Polivka
CA Court Concludes Contract, Common Law Claims not Preempted by Trade Secrets Act
The Court of Appeal for California’s Fourth Appellate District recently confirmed that the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), a broad statute intended to be the last word in trade secret misappropriation cases, does not preclude separate but related common law claims, so long as these claims are not based entirely on the trade secret