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 79

Forum selection clause in non-compete agreement unenforceable

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 20 2015

A contractual provision designating the exclusive venue for filing a breach of contract lawsuit was held to be trumped by a 100-year old statute

Seventh Circuit vacates multi-million dollar jury verdict against nursing home on retaliation and whistleblower claims; plaintiffs seek rehearing en banc

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

In a stunning reversal, the Seventh Circuit recently vacated an over $12 million jury verdict against a nursing home and its president, and remanded

Despite allegations that something fishy was occurring, Kentucky federal district court rules that Texas corporate defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in trade secret misappropriation suit

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

MPI, a Texas company, went to Kentucky and allegedly attempted to hire two Luvata employees, Foster and Meredith

“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

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

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

Employer fires CEO and then obtains TRO enjoining him from breaching his non-disclosure, non-compete agreement

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 21 2010

Dakota Beef, a South Dakota processor and seller of organic beef products, hired Scott Lively in 2006 to be its CEO

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

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

Arizona federal court issues significant Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and trade secret preemption decision

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 27 2012

According to a recent Arizona federal court decision, (a) an employee who had the right to access his employer’s confidential emails did not violate the federal Computer Fraud and Access Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030, by downloading 300 such documents to his personal computer and sharing them with a recently terminated employee; (b) an employer may pursue either a misappropriation claim under the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act (AUTSA), or statutorily pre-empted causes of action based on the same facts; and (c) a rule to show cause is appropriate where the defendants violated a 48-hour deadline to return the employer’s confidential documents