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: 1-4 of 4

Chalasani revisited: misappropriating ex-employee permanently enjoined

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2011

We previously reported on the filing of a trade secret misappropriation case, Banc of America Securities, LLC, et al. v. Chalasani, in federal court in New York, Index No. 10 cv 7681, in which B of A sought injunctive relief against a former employee who downloaded and transferred electronically without permission proprietary trading strategies and other non-public information. B of A had announced reductions-in-force on September 21, 2010

Lexus reprised

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 18 2011

In the Toyota v Tabari, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 2010 decision, the pro se defendants prevailed

Illinois appellate courts fractured over legitimate business interest test

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 17 2010

Just over a month ago, the Second District Illinois Appellate Court found that its sister court's decision in Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Ehlers, 394 Ill. App. 3d 421, 432 (4th Dist. 2009), to eliminate the "legitimate interest" test as a prerequisite to enforcement of post-employment non-compete agreements "warranted consideration."

Trade secret litigation: it's getting criminal

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 4 2011

One would think that a civil jury award of $1.3 billion (even one that may be subsequently reduced by a judge to $272 million) would provide sufficient warning to companies about the perils of trade secret litigation. But, as the long-running dispute between SAP AG and Oracle Corporation makes clear, defendants should be concerned not just about the possibility of an adverse civil judgment, but also the possibility that matters can get much worse