Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility

[caption id="attachment_2093" align="alignright" width="120"] Barry A. Guryan[/caption]

The Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Robert DeLeo, announced last week that he will introduce a compromise bill this session to place limits on the enforcement of non-competes in Massachusetts.

The Speaker’s stated motive is to find a balance between the goal of protecting businesses in Massachusetts and fostering a business environment that encourages the incubation for talent. The proposed bill would place a 12-month limit on non-compete agreements ...

Our colleagues Lauri F. Rasnick and Adriana S. Kosovych, attorneys in the Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers: "Implementing and Applying the Employee Choice Doctrine: Employers Focus on Forfeiture to Protect Their Company’s Assets."

Following is an excerpt:

Employers seeking to protect their competitive advantage and find an alternative method of influencing employees to not compete are increasingly relying on ...

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="120"] Barry A. Guryan[/caption]

In a recent case decided by the Massachusetts Superior Court’s Business Litigation Session (which typically handles restrictive covenant cases), Gillette lost its attempt to obtain a broad injunction against a former in-house counsel who became the General Counsel at a competitor, Shavelogic.  In THE GILLETTE COMPANY v. CRAIG PROVOST, ET AL., Civil Action No. 15-0149 BLS 2 (Dec. 22, 2015), the Court found Gillette unlikely to succeed on its claims that  the General Counsel, who left Gillette ten years ...

[caption id="attachment_2072" align="alignright" width="113"] Zachary C. Jackson[/caption]

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Hammond Division) recently ruled on cross motions for summary judgment in the case of E.T. Products, LLC v. D.E. Miller Holdings, Inc. (Case No. 2:13cv424-PPS).  The dispute in that case stemmed from the acquisition of a portion of a company.  Essentially, the purchaser claimed that the seller was violating the restrictive covenant prohibiting him from soliciting the purchaser’s customers, and the seller ...

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="122"] Peter A. Steinmeyer[/caption]

In Bridgeview Bank Group v. Meyer, the Illinois Appellate Court recently affirmed the denial of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against an individual who joined a competitor and then, among other things, allegedly violated contractual non-solicitation and confidentiality obligations.

As a threshold matter, the Appellate Court was troubled by what it described as Bridgeview’s “leisurely approach” to seeking injunctive relief.  The Appellate Court noted that Bridgeview filed ...

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="117"] Zachary C. Jackson[/caption]

At the end of January, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a decision in the matter of Roth Staffing Companies, L.P. v. Thomas Brown, OEM ProStaffing, Inc., OEM of CT, Inc., and David Fernandez (Case No. 3:13cv216).  Much of that opinion is devoted to analyzing the parties’ arguments about whether piercing the corporate veil was appropriate under the circumstances.  However, the opinion also addressed the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its breach of ...

Last week, the Senate version of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (S. 1890) was passed with bipartisan support by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  As we have previously discussed on this blog, the bill is aimed at addressing alleged inadequacies in U.S. law through the creation of a federal private right of action for trade secret misappropriation.  The legislation would also provide injunctions to preserve evidence and prevent disclosure, and damages to account for economic harm to plaintiffs whose trade secrets are stolen.

Having cleared the Judiciary Committee -- a step that eluded ...

A recent case out of Ohio offers an instructive lesson for those looking to probe the geographical limits of a non-compete agreement.  A dentist sold his dental practice and also continued to work as an employee there.  As part of the sale, he agreed not to compete for five years and was prohibited from working “within 30 miles” of the practice.  The relationship between the parties deteriorated and the dentist went to work for a competing firm.  The purchaser dentist filed suit claiming a breach of the non-compete.

The trial court ruled against the seller, noting that although the new ...

Readers of this blog know that long settled understandings regarding what constitutes adequate consideration for a restrictive covenant in Illinois were turned upside down when the First District Appellate Court in Illinois held in Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services Inc., 2013 IL App. (1^st) 120327 that, absent other consideration, two years of employment are required for a restrictive covenant to be supported by adequate consideration, regardless of whether the covenant was signed at the outset of employment or after, and regardless of whether the employee quit or was fired.

About four months ago, to some fanfare, a handful of legislators in Congress introduced a bill called the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015.  The bill seeks to create a private right of action allowing companies to assert civil trade secret misappropriation claims under federal law (which would supplement the existing patchwork of state law remedies).  What has happened to the bill since then?  Is there still a chance that it could be signed into law?

Upon introduction, the respective versions of the bill, H.R. 3326 and S. 1890, were referred to the Judiciary Committees of the House and ...