Trade Secrets

“You’re Hired: Now Hand Over the Goods”

January 8, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Trade Secrets: Buckley v. Abuzir, 2014 IL App (1st) 130469

“You’re Hired: Now Hand Over the Goods”

In addition to potential tax advantages, the principal reason to create a corporation is limited personal liability, which means that the debts and liabilities of the corporation are distinct from those of its shareholders. However, in certain circumstances, courts are empowered to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ and impose personal liability on the officers and potentially even the shareholders of a corporation if there has been gross undercapitalization of the corporation, or if corporate funds have been improperly comingled with non-corporate funds, or if it finds that a ‘sham’ corporation has been designed to improperly shield the individual directors or shareholders from personal liability.

What if, in order to obtain proprietary information, an employer created a sham corporation, hired you as an employee, and then claimed your former business’s lifeblood — all its proprietary trade secrets? That is what is alleged in the April 2014 Illinois appellate case, Buckley v. Abuzir, 2014 IL App (1st) 130469. Continue reading ›

Federal Court Applies State Law in Finding Covenant Not to Compete Unenforceable – Fields v. QSP, Inc.

August 18, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

After a woman filed suit against a fundraising company for alleged payroll violations, the company brought counterclaims against her, including a claim for alleged breach of a covenant not to compete. Fields v. QSP, Inc. (Fields 2), No. CV 12-1238 CAS (PJWx), opinion (C.D. Cal., Jun. 4, 2012). The plaintiff filed the lawsuit as a putative class action on behalf of employees subjected to employment practices that allegedly violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various California statutes. After hearing several competing motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, the court dismissed some of the plaintiff’s employment law claims and retained others. It also ruled that the covenant not to compete in the plaintiff’s employment contract was unenforceable under California law.

The defendant, QSP, Inc., serves a nationwide clientele of youth organizations and schools. It employed the plaintiff from 1999 to 2010, primarily as a “Sales and Service Specialist.” Her job involved researching and contacting potential clients, assisting “field sales managers” (FSMs), and maintaining a database (the “QSP Database”) of current and prospective school customers. A covenant not to compete in her employment contract stated that she may not contact fundraising organizations that she “solicited or serviced during [her] employment by QSP” for a period of twelve months. Fields 2 at 12. QSP alleged that the plaintiff did not delete the QSP Database from her computer when her employment ended, and used the database to provide services to QSP’s competitors.

Court Rules that Parent Company, After Acquiring a Subsidiary, May Not Sue to Enforce the Subsidiary’s Employment Agreement – CDW, LLC, et al v. NETech Corporation

November 29, 2012 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

An Indiana federal district court ruled, in CDW, LLC, et al v. NETech Corporation, that neither a parent company nor one of its subsidiaries may sue to enforce the employment contracts of another of its subsidiaries, when one subsidiary is clearly the party to the agreement. The dispute involved covenants of noncompetition in a company’s employment contract and a claim for tortious interference with a business contract.

Berbee Information Networks Corporation employed several individuals as sales executives. These three individuals signed employment contracts that included a paragraph stating that they agreed, upon termination of their employment with Berbee, not to accept employment in direct competition with Berbee for up to twelve months. “Competition” included solicitation of Berbee employees or clients and use of Berbee’s proprietary business information. In September 2006, Berbee became a subsidiary of CDW, LLC when CDW purchased it and merged it with another subsidiary. Berbee, all parties to the eventual lawsuit agreed, was the surviving corporation of the merger.

CDW operated several subsidiaries that, like Berbee, engaged in the business of technology sales. Each subsidiary served a different market, such as commercial businesses, nonprofits, or government agencies. CDW transferred the three Berbee employees at the center of the dispute to another subsidiary, CDW Direct, between 2008 and 2009. These employees all left CDW Direct at different times to work for NETech Corporation. They each received letters after commencing work at NETech from an attorney for CDW alleging that they were in violation of their noncompetition agreement, demanding that they cease work for NETech and return all confidential materials obtained from Berbee or CDW.

Northern District of Illinois Grants Motion to Dismiss in Trade Secrets Case Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

May 24, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

After hiring someone, businesses expect not only that their new employee will perform his job adequately, but also that he will do no harm to the company or its ability to do business. Employers know that their expectations are not always met by those employees, which is why the use of employment contracts with non-compete clauses are quite common these days. Our Chicago restrictive covenant attorneys just discovered a recent court decision that details a dispute between an employer and an ex-employee regarding one such employment agreement.

In Zep Inc. v. First Aid Corp., Plaintiff Zep employed the individual Defendants as sales representatives for its industrial cleaning products business pursuant to an employment agreement that contained non-disclosure, non-solicitation, and non-compete provisions. During their employment, Defendants had access to Plaintiff’s customer lists, supplier lists, pricing information, and other proprietary information. Eventually, a competitor, Defendant First Aid, hired the other named Defendants away from Plaintiff and subsequently solicited Plaintiffs clients and other employees.

As a result, Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (ITSA), and tortious interference with contract. Plaintiff contends that First Aid induced the other Defendants to breach the employment agreements they signed with Plaintiff and that the other Defendants used and disclosed Plaintiffs trade secrets. In response, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the claims, which were granted as to three of the individual defendants due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court found that because three of the individual Defendants were residents of Michigan and Ohio, Plaintiff is located in Georgia, and the employment agreements were signed outside of Illinois, they did not have the requisite minimum contacts to give an Illinois court jurisdiction over the matter. Furthermore, Plaintiff had not alleged that any of Defendants’ actions were aimed at Illinois, and neither had their actions caused harm to Plaintiff in Illinois, so specific personal jurisdiction was also improper. The Court denied the remaining motions to dismiss – finding that the non-compete provisions were enforceable because the geographic limitations were reasonable and the non-solicitation clause was limited in scope to Plaintiff’s competitors for a span of one year. Plaintiff’s allegations were also found to be sufficient to support a claim under the ITSA because it had identified a list of confidential information and trade secrets in its pleadings.

Northern District of Illinois Federal Court Grants Injunction in Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Case

May 10, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Trade secrets are the lifeblood of many companies these days, and protecting those secrets is always of the utmost importance. Through our years of experience advising and representing companies, we here at DiTommaso Lubin know how to maintain the security of your trade-secret portfolio and prosecute those who attempt to misappropriate any of your trade secrets. Because employees with trade-secret knowledge come and go with such frequency these days, our Des Plaines trade-secret attorneys wanted to share a recent court decision that illustrates the perils companies face due to departing employees.

In Mintel International Group LTD v. Neergheen, Plaintiff Mintel initially employed Defendant in its London-based marketing department, and upon his hiring, Defendant signed an employment contract that included non-compete and confidentiality restrictive covenants. Defendant was then transferred to Plaintiff’s Chicago office where he signed a second employment contract containing non-compete and confidentiality clauses similar to those in the first agreement. This second contract also contained a clause prohibiting the solicitation of Plaintiff’s employees and customers – all of the clauses were in effect for one year after the cessation his employment with Plaintiff. Defendant eventually left the employ of Plaintiff and began working for a competitor company in a different product area in order to comply with his non-compete. Plaintiff failed to ask Defendant to return the laptop given to him by the company during his exit interview, and also failed to ask him about proprietary information he had emailed to himself prior to his departure – despite knowing that he had taken possession of the information before he left.

Eventually, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (ITSA), and breach of the non-disclosure, non-compete, and non-solicitation provisions in his employment contract with Defendant. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and money damages. After a bench trial, the Court found that Defendant had not violated the CFAA because he had only emailed copies of Plaintiff’s files to a private email address, which did not satisfy the damage requirement of the statute. The Court next held that, while the copied files qualified as trade secrets, Defendant did not violate the ITSA because there was no proof that he had or would use the information in his position at a competing company. Finally, the Court found that the restrictive covenants were not invalid as a matter of law, and enjoined Defendant from: ever using any of Plaintiff’s proprietary info, contacting any of Plaintiff’s customers for nine months, or working for his new employer in the same area as he had with Plaintiff for a period of six months.

Detroit Pistons Owner Sues Competitor and Ex Employees for Alleged Trade Secrets Theft

January 12, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Chicago trade secrets attorneys were interested to see a recent trade secrets lawsuit coming from the high-dollar world of professional sports. Palace Sports & Entertainment, owner of the Detroit Pistons basketball team, is suing rival venue and sports company Olympia Entertainment Inc., plus nine ex-employees who moved to Olympia, for alleged theft of its confidential trade secrets. Crain’s Detroit Business reported that the claim stems from the movement of ten Palace employees to Olympia, starting in February when Palace president Tom Wilson left to run a new venture for Olympia and its parent company, Ilitch Holdings. This venture was to look into a new venue for the Detroit Red Wings, also owned by Ilitch. Nine people followed Wilson, including two executive vice presidents. In Michigan state court, Palace accuses them of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conspiracy, conversion, tortious interference and misappropriation of trade secrets.

According to the complaint in Palace Sports & Entertainment Inc. v. Olympia Entertainment Inc., dated June 8, 2010, Palace is accusing the ex-employees of taking and misusing trade secrets, despite having signed different versions of a confidentiality agreement that gave them a fiduciary role in Palace’s confidential information. The contract also contained restrictive covenants not to disclose such information to people outside the company, or use it for their own or anyone else’s gain. Confidential information was defined broadly, including “any technical, economic, financial, marketing or other information, which is not common knowledge.” Palace alleges that the ex-employees misappropriated information including suite prices, customer and prospect lists and sales notes, a business plan, marketing plans, suite assignments, appointment logs, proposals, vendor lists and at least one contract. When Palace notified Olympia of the first theft, it said, Olympia provided physical documents and lists of files. But Olympia did not provide the electronic data behind those files, Palace alleged and has even put some of the data on its own computers.

Palace demanded that Olympia return all of the electronic files and physical documents; that each ex-employee swear an oath that all of the information has been returned; and that a third-party expert be allowed to comb Olympia’s computers and the ex-employees’ personal computers for the information. Olympia has not complied. In its lawsuit, Palace said this caused it immediate and irreparable harm by enabling unfair competition. Olympia said publicly that it believed Palace simply did not like losing its employees. No further court documents are freely available, but trial is set for May 27, 2011.

This case generated great interest in the Detroit press, in part because Ilitch was considering buying the Pistons from Palace. But as Illinois business lawyers, we would like to discuss the strength of Palace’s case, judging by the allegations made in its complaint. Specifically, we suspect that the defendants could consider a defense based on whether the information they are accused of stealing was actually confidential trade secrets. Under the laws of Michigan, Illinois and other states, some information is not a trade secret because it is widely available to the public and not valuable. Thus, a trade secrets lawsuit cannot survive if it is based on the use of information such as lists of businesses copied from a phone book. Even if Palace’s confidentiality agreement defines such information as confidential, employees would be under no obligation to comply. The agreement cited in the complaint may also be subject to a challenge for being overly broad or vague because its definition of confidential business information includes “any information, not known to the general public.” This could easily include information with no special economic value.

Wall Street Journal Reports: Hilton Settles Corporate Espionage Suit Brought Against it By Starwood

December 25, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

The Wall Street Journal reports that Hilton settled a corporate espionage suit brought against it by Starwood.

Hilton hired two former Starwood executives who allegedly stole over 100,000 documents belonging to Starwook outlining many of Starwood’s key marketing plans and ideas for liefstyle chains such as W. Hilton settled the case for an unspecified cash payment along with an agreement banning it from starting a luxury lifestyle chain for two years.

The article concludes that by settling now, Hilton avoids having to deal with the ban on developing a lifestyle luxury hotel chain once the economy heats up again:

Summary Judgment Inappropriate in Dispute Over Assignment of Legal Malpractice Claim

December 1, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Illinois legal malpractice attorneys were interested to see a recent decision allowing corporate litigants to assign their claims to former shareholders after a merger. Learning Curve International, Inc. v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, No. 1-08-0985 (Ill. 1st June 18, 2009). In the underlying case, PlayWood Toys sued Learning Curve International for misappropriation of trade secrets. During that litigation, Learning Curve merged with RC2 Brands. Learning Curve settled that litigation, but then sued its attorneys in the matter and their law firms for legal malpractice. This claim gave rise to the dispute over assignment of claims.

Attorneys Dean A. Dickie and Roger L. Price represented Learning Curve in the PlayWood litigation, which began in 1995. Both attorneys were at the law firm of D’Ancona & Pflaum at the time, but due to personnel moves and mergers, Dickie was at Dykema Gossett and Price was at Seyfarth Shaw during the instant case. In April of 1998, PlayWood offered to settle its trade secrets claim for $350,000; Learning Curve counteroffered $225,000. There was no deal. A jury verdict reached in 2000 held Learning Curve liable for misappropriating the trade secret, but the judge granted a post-trial motion from Learning Curve for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, saying PlayWood had not proven the information at issue was a trade secret. PlayWood appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

While the appeal was pending, Learning Curve merged with RC2. As part of the merger, it agreed to indemnify RC2 from liability related to the PlayWood litigation. Learning Curve remained a separate corporation for tax purposes, but without separate operations. Five months later, the Seventh Circuit ruled, making Learning Curve liable for $6 million in compensatory damages and requiring a new trial on exemplary damages. Rather than face trial, RC2 settled with PlayWood for nearly $12 million, which came from an escrow account set aside for this purpose. RC2 and Learning Curve then agreed in writing to pursue a legal malpractice claim against the attorneys in the original case. This agreement gave former Learning Curve shareholders 90% of any proceeds, but explicitly said nothing in the agreement should be interpreted as an assignment of the claim or its proceeds.

RC2 and Learning Curve then sued Dickie, Price and all of their current and former law firms for malpractice, claiming they negligently failed to advise Learning Curve to settle for $350,000 and negligently failed to explain that they could be liable for millions, including exemplary damages. They sought the cost of the $12 million settlement and all attorney fees paid after the $350,000 settlement offer. The defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds, saying the claim was not timely; Illinois law does not allow legal malpractice claims to be assigned; and that Learning Curve had not suffered the alleged damages because RC2 paid the settlement. The trial court granted summary judgment on the assignment of claim grounds and ruled that Learning Curve had no right to sue for any costs incurred after the merger. Learning Curve appealed.

The First District started with the issue of the alleged assignment of the claim. Illinois law generally forbids assigning legal malpractice claims, it wrote, and it looks at intent when judging whether a claim has been assigned. That means the disclaimer in the agreement between RC2 and former Learning Curve shareholders was not relevant. However, Illinois and foreign courts have allowed assignment of a malpractice claim in certain circumstances where many interests have passed from one party to another, including, in other states, as part of the transfer of assets in a merger. Because many assets are being transferred in this case, the court wrote, assigning the malpractice claim does not violate public policy. It reversed the trial court’s judgment on that count.

It also rejected the defendants’ argument that the two-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice in Illinois barred plaintiffs’ claim. The defendants argued that the clock started running after the bills came for the original trial in 200, in which Learning Curve was found liable. However, the court wrote, the judge in that trial granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict, leaving Learning Curve liable only for its attorney fees. It was not obvious then that the defendants’ advice was bad. Instead, the First District wrote, the clock started running on this claim after the Seventh Circuit’s verdict. Because this claim was filed within the two-year period from that date, the court wrote, it is not time-barred.

Learning Curve’s luck ran out when the First District considered whether it had any damages from the alleged malpractice. The trial court found that it did not because RC2 paid all post-merger costs, including the judgment from the Seventh Circuit and attorney fees, and reimbursed itself from the escrow account. The appeals court agreed, saying those payments did not affect Learning Curve’s assets. Furthermore, an indemnity clause in the merger agreement eliminated Learning Curve’s losses from those sources. However, the appeals court did say that Learning Curve’s former shareholders, who actually suffered the alleged loss, should substitute as the real parties in interest on the post-merger parts of the claim, writing that “if the defendants committed malpractice, the merger of the corporate client should not cause the claim to vanish.” Thus, the case was reversed and remanded to trial court.

NRP Reports: “HP Sues Ex-CEO Hurd Over Oracle’s Job Offer”

September 11, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

HP Sues Ex-CEO Hurd Over Oracle’s Job Offer

by Richard Gonzales

NPR reports:

The Wall Street Journal Reports: H-P Sues to Stop Ex-Chief’s Job

September 11, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

H-P Sues to Stop Ex-Chief’s Job
By ROBERT A. GUTH, BEN WORTHEN And JOANN S. LUBLIN .

The Wall Street Jornal Reports:

Hewlett-Packard Co. sued to block its former chief executive from joining rival Oracle Corp. as a senior executive, alleging Mark Hurd’s hiring breaches his exit agreement and will inevitably lead to a transfer of its trade secrets to a competitor. …
While it isn’t unusual for companies to sue departing executives to enforce exit agreements, H-P’s suit Tuesday against Mr. Hurd is atypical in that former CEOs are rarely subject to such legal actions, experts said.

H-P’s suit focuses on a confidentiality agreement, which restricts Mr. Hurd from disclosing sensitive information about his former employer.