Total Articles: 10
Fisher Phillips • October 19, 2017
A decade ago, I litigated a trade secret/unfair competition dispute between two large plastics manufacturers. The Plaintiff was based in southwest Florida, the Defendant in southern Alabama. The factual dispute is interesting, though not necessarily particularly pertinent to the subject I want to address in this post.
Ogletree Deakins • September 24, 2017
“Knowledge is power” goes the old adage. Well, that is certainly true in the world of business where secret processes, confidential designs, and even a good customer list can give a business a vital commercial edge over its rivals. Protecting the sanctity of that information on the departure of a key employee is vital.
Fisher Phillips • September 14, 2017
Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Blog
LinkedIn Over Her Head: When Broadcasting a Change in Employment Counts as Solicitation
Sept. 8, 2017 by John Singer
A recent blog post discussed an Illinois state court decision evaluating an employer’s claim against a former employee for breach of a non-solicitation agreement, when the employee had added former co-workers on LinkedIn after going to work for a competitor. There, the court determined that the employee had not violated the non-solicitation agreement, finding that merely adding a former co-worker as a LinkedIn connection was a type of “passive” social media activity that did not rise to level of solicitation. The court differentiated between passive, untargeted social media activity and more “active” interactions, such as sending direct messages to former co-workers or targeting former customers with a sales pitch, and suggested that such activity could run afoul of a non-solicitation agreement.
Phelps Dunbar LLP • August 24, 2017
In 2016, President Obama signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), allowing businesses nationwide to file suit in federal court to protect their trade secrets from unscrupulous former employees and dishonest business competitors. The law was applauded by the business community, because prior to the enactment of the DTSA, companies were limited to seeking relief in state courts, where the law can vary from state-to-state, yielding inconsistent results.
Fisher Phillips • August 20, 2017
When Gregory Gelineau quit his job at an Illinois-based insurance company to work for a competitor, he sent LinkedIn invitations to a group of his former co-workers. In response, Gelineau’s former company sued him. The company, Bankers Life, alleged that Gelineau violated the non-solicitation provision in his employment agreement by recruiting or attempting to recruit several of his former co-workers.
Ogletree Deakins • August 17, 2017
Restaurant fortunes are often attributable to just one or two signature dishes, and recipe ownership dilemmas can arise in restaurants of all sizes. Recent examples include a joint venture gone awry, resulting in a war over the ownership of a salted caramel brownie recipe; the “Taco Bible” that a former employee allegedly stole and used at another taco restaurant nearby; and a well-known Australian chef demanding that his former employer cease serving the signature dish he created when he worked there.
Fisher Phillips • August 08, 2017
The Eight Circuit recently addressed this question in Ag Spectrum Co. v. Elder, Case No. 16-3113 (8th Cir. August 2, 2017). In that case, Ag Spectrum contracted with Vaughn Elder to work as an independent contractor. Elder also agreed to a three-year noncompete whereby he would not compete with Ag Spectrum by “marketing to, selling to, or consulting with its customers about similar products for three years after terminating the Agreement.” Elder argued that the Agreement was unenforceable under Iowa law.
Every organization wants to protect its assets, and employees are undoubtedly vital to any employer as one of its greatest resources. Thus, an employer will often use a noncompete agreement, which is a type of restrictive covenant designed to limit an employee’s ability to work in similar employment for a competitor.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 19, 2017
In the midst of a heated litigation commenced by an employer against its former employee for alleged violations of a non-compete agreement, an employee returned the cell phone she used during her employment. Prior to returning the phone, she deleted all emails that were stored on the phone.
FordHarrison LLP • July 14, 2017
Executive Summary: An employer hiring an individual known to be subject to a non-compete contract can expect to be accused of tortiously interfering with that contract. On the other hand, the hiring employer should be innocent of wrongdoing if it has no idea the new hire is bound by a restrictive covenant. In Acclaim Sys. v. Infosys, Ltd., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2325 (3d Cir. 2017), the Third Circuit recently affirmed this common-sense approach by holding an employer lacking actual knowledge of a restrictive covenant cannot be liable for tortious interference with that covenant.