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 65

Florida court finds that employer without knowledge that employees it just hired have non-competes are not liable for tortious interference with contract

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2014

A defendant company was unaware, when it hired two individuals, that they had entered into non-competition agreements with their prior employer. As a

“Gist of the action” doctrine may require dismissal of tort claims based on breach of restrictive covenants in employment agreement

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 19 2012

Pursuant to the “Gist of the Action” doctrine, tort claims may be dismissed if they are “intertwined with,” and not just “collateral to,” contract claims in the same complaint

New Hampshire court voids non-compete clause in independent contractor agreement

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 21 2013

A recent New Hampshire decision serves as a reminder that courts may treat non-compete provisions differently in the context of independent

Pleading former employer’s breach of employment contract: affirmative defense or counterclaim to suit for violating non-compete and non-solicitation covenants?

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 11 2013

Affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaims. In many instances, the consideration for an ex-employee's non-compete and non-solicitation

No damages? Illinois federal court tosses Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim alleging hacking of law firm network

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 13 2013

An Illinois federal court recently found in the favor of the defendant on a plaintiff's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim because the plaintiff

Indiana federal court holds that a confidentiality agreement without any limitations violates Indiana law and that a suit for misappropriation cannot be brought by a plaintiff who uses a trade secret with permission but does not own it

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 8 2012

Shortly before leaving the employ of Swanel Beverage, Inc. (a manufacturer of soft drinks, juice products, and energy beverages), Bodemer Swanel’s national sales and marketing manager who “was involved with almost every facet of Swanel’s business” incorporated Innovative Beverage, Inc

Federal courts divided on the definition of “whistleblower” as that word is used in the Dodd-Frank Act

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 19 2014

The U.S. district courts are currently split on the question of whether the anti-retaliation provisions of the federal Dodd-Frank Act ("DFA") apply

Utah appellate court holds that "confidential" price list is not a trade secret but a contract bid could be, and Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts common law claims based on misusing confidential information not a "trade secret"

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 21 2012

In a recent, lengthy decision involving allegations of deceitful acts and unfair competition, the Utah Court of Appeals largely affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants with respect to a complaint alleging misappropriation of proprietary data and related conduct

Connecticut court has jurisdiction over Canadian defendant charged with misappropriation of Canadian company’s trade secret emails

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 10 2013

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a Connecticut federal court's order dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction a Connecticut

Missouri federal court finds forfeiture-for-competition provision in stock option agreement enforceable

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 4 2013

A recent Missouri federal court decision highlights the different standards that courts employ in evaluating forfeiture-for-competition provisions