Unfair Competition Litigation Experience

Unfair Competition

Federal Jury Gives Maslon Client Complete Victory in Trade Secret Misappropriation Case. A team of Maslon lawyers successfully completed a federal jury trial which resulted in complete vindication of their client, the defendant in the action. The twelve person jury found that Maslon's client had neither misappropriated trade secrets nor breached its contract to maintain the confidentiality of information. The jury completely rejected the plaintiff's claim for $110 million, which under the applicable trade secret statute could have been doubled to $220 million plus attorneys' fees. During the three week trial the jury heard testimony from more than a dozen fact witnesses as well as from five expert witnesses. Following two days of deliberation, the jury found that the defendant had neither breached the contract nor misappropriated any trade secrets. (2007)
Maslon client successfully enforces covenant not to compete in interstate dispute. Maslon Partner Wayne Moskowitz recently succeeded in enforcing a noncompete agreement against a Texas employee of a Pennsylvania company who left to work for a direct competitor. A Fortune 500 company retained Maslon to represent one of its Pennsylvania-based subsidiaries. Maslon anticipated a forum selection battle because the employee lived and worked in Texas, and Texas courts would likely not enforce the non-compete covenant or the contractual choice of Pennsylvania law. Maslon quickly commenced suit in Pennsylvania federal court, so that when the employee filed a counter-suit in Texas state court, the Texas court lacked the power to enjoin the first-filed Pennsylvania federal case from going forward. The next hurdle was convincing the Pennsylvania court to apply Pennsylvania law, because the agreement’s choice-of-law clause was unenforceable if Pennsylvania’s non-compete law violated Texas’s public policy. Maslon successfully argued that while the non-compete covenant might violate Texas law, it did not violate Texas public policy, and the Pennsylvania federal court agreed. It applied Pennsylvania law and granted Maslon’s client a TRO preventing the employee from working for the competitor. Following an evidentiary hearing the Pennsylvania court granted Maslon’s client a preliminary injunction. The victory was sealed when the employee agreed to drop his Texas suit and abide by the injunction for the full term of his non-compete covenant. (2007)
Misappropriation of Technology Claims Regected. Maslon successfully defended MCNC, formerly Microelectronics Center of North Carolina, a technology-based economic development non-profit company, in a $165 million dispute over a development and license agreement claiming misappropriation of claimant's technology. After a three-week arbitration hearing in Minneapolis and Raleigh, North Carolina, the arbitrator rejected all claims, finding in MCNC's favor on issues relating to the definition of the applicable field of use and operation of the parties' noncompete agreement and awarded no damages. MedCam v. MCNC (2006)
Fees Recovered After Enforcing Covenant Not To Compete. Maslon has successfully represented a major medical technology company in numerous disputes around the nation involving covenants not to compete. In a case of first impression in Minnesota, Maslon not only prevailed in enforcing the non-compete covenant at trial and on appeal, it also obtained a judgment for the attorney's fees Maslon's client had incurred in enforcing the covenant. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Maslon's client was entitled to recover such fees from the competitor that had hired Medtronic's employee, based upon a theory of tortious interference with contract. Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., 573 N.W.2d 356 (Minn. 1998)
Covenant Not To Compete Enforced in Inter-State Dispute. In a dispute that was nationally significant for the inter-state comity issues it raised, Maslon successfully enforced a covenant not to compete against a former Minnesota employee who attempted to violate it in California. The employee and his new employer sought to take advantage of California's public policy against non-compete covenants by bringing a surprise, pre-emptive lawsuit in California. Maslon quickly obtained a TRO from a Minnesota court enforcing the non-compete covenant. After the non-compete covenant had been enforced for its full term and Maslon had obtained summary judgment for breach of contract, the California employer settled our client's tortious interference with contract claim by paying attorneys' fees our client had incurred in enforcing the non-compete covenant. Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp., 630 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)
Buy-Sell Agreement Enforced. In 2001, Maslon obtained a $7.1 million arbitration award, on behalf of a publicly traded client against a seller of a technology consulting firm who breached non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in a buy-sell agreement and misappropriated trade secrets. The award followed a two week arbitration and included a substantial award of attorneys' fees.
TRO Motion Defeated. Maslon defeated a motion for a TRO brought against a provider of electronic data consulting services, in an action to enforce a sales representative's non-competition covenant, resulting in a favorable settlement for our client.
Trade Secret Claims Dismissed. Maslon obtained a voluntary dismissal of a trade secret misappropriation claim involving electronic gaming technology.
Trade Secret and Discrimination Claims Settled. Maslon obtained a favorable settlement of trade secret and gender/race discrimination claims on behalf of a medical product manufacturer.
Trade Secret and Lanham Act Claims Settled. Maslon obtained a favorable settlement of trade secret misappropriation and Lanham Act product disparagement claims on behalf of a medical product manufacturer.
Injunction obtained. Maslon successfully obtained temporary injunction followed by stipulated three-year injunction prohibiting former marketing manager of recreational watercraft from accepting position with major competitor that would violate his non-compete agreement.