We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 17

Update on Georgia restrictive covenant cases

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 5 2010

The Georgia Court of Appeals issued two decisions in July addressing restrictive covenants in Georgia

Inevitable disclosure of nooks and crannies

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 1 2010

When explaining to lay people what we do, trade secret practitioners often use the classic examples of the formula for Coca-Cola or KFC's secret recipe of eleven herbs and spices

Trade secret claim wins out to protect software

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 10 2009

In Coleman v. Retina Consultants, P.C., the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s decision to enjoin a former employee based on his non-compete provision, but it upheld the injunction to the extent that it prevented the employee from using his former employer’s trade secrets

IBM v. Johnson: the Second Circuit weighs in

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 28 2009

When we last wrote about IBM’s efforts to enjoin David Johnson, its former Vice President of Corporate Development, from joining Dell, Judge Stephen Robinson of the Southern District of New York had denied IBM’s second motion for preliminary injunction and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was preparing to hold oral argument on the matter

Georgia Court of Appeals upholds non-compete provision against neurosurgeon

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 12 2009

In Pittman v. Coosa Med. Group PC, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's decision to grant an interlocutory injunction enforcing a non-compete provision that prevented Dr. H. Harris Pittman from practicing neurosurgery within a 30-mile radius of CMG’s principal office in Rome, Georgia

Choose your restricted territory carefully

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 27 2009

A recent trial court decision from Superior Court Judge Tommy Hankinson of the Griffin Judicial Circuit illustrates one of the many difficulties of enforcing a non-compete provision in Georgia

IBM v. Johnson: the saga continues

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 18 2009

When we last wrote about IBM’s efforts to enjoin David Johnson, its former Vice President of Corporate Development, from joining Dell, Judge Stephen Robinson of the Southern District of New York had denied IBM’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction following a June 22, 2009 preliminary injunction hearing, and IBM had filed an interlocutory appeal

First Apple, now Dell: IBM pursues a departing executive

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 13 2009

In the wake of its ultimately successful efforts to obtain an injunction against former executive Mark Papermaster following Papermaster’s move to Apple, IBM recently sought to enjoin David Johnson from joining Dell

Georgia Supreme Court holds that in-term restrictive covenants are subject to strict scrutiny

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 29 2009

In Atlanta Bread Co. Int’l, Inc. v. Lupton-Smith, S08G1815, 2009 WL 1834215 (Ga. Jun. 29, 2009), the Georgia Supreme Court today confirmed that in-term restrictive covenants are subject to the same strict scrutiny standard applied to post-term covenants and the same reasonableness standards of time, territory, and scope

District Court denies request for injunctive relief in financial services industry dispute

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 15 2009

In Smith Barney, Inc. v. Darling, No. 09-C-540, 2009 WL 1544756 (E.D. Wis. Jun. 3, 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Smith Barney’s request for temporary injunctive relief in aid of arbitration against five departing financial consultants and their new employer