Case Notes: Trade Secrets, Non-Compete Agreements

• » Murfreesboro Med. Clinic, P.A. v. Udom | 
  166 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. 2005)
• » Mid-Michigan Computer Sys., Inc. v. Marc Glassman, Inc. | 
  416 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2005)
• » ATC Dist. Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc. | 
  2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5059 (6th Cir. March 30, 2005)
  Kenny Hester, an employee of ATC Distribution Group, Inc., left ATC to form his own company. In doing so, Hester hired away several of ATC’s employees, created a transmission parts catalog that was virtually identical to ATC’s catalog, and obtained ATC’s customer list.
• » Association of American Medical Colleges v. The Princeton Review, Inc. | 
  2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17458 (D.D.C. 2004)
  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck a preemption defense to a trade secret claim against a standardized test review course marketer, holding that the Copyright Act did not preempt a trade secret claim misappropriation claim because misappropriation contained elements not contained in a copyright infringement claim.
• » Catalyst Chemical Services, Inc. v. Global Ground Support | 
  2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25069 (D.D.C. 2004)
  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether certain facts were secret, valuable, and previously undisclosed.
• » Airline Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. United States Postal Serv. | 
  2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26067 (D.D.C. 2004)
  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the United States Postal Service on a Freedom of Information Act claim, holding that the request material (certain agreements between the Postal Service and a carrier) were exempt from disclosure under the trade secrets exemption to the FOIA.
• » M. Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA | 
  319 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2004)
  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the FA’s motion to dismiss a Federal Tort Claims Act suit that alleged, inter alia, that the FDA had disclosed the plaintiff’s trade secrets. The court found that the actions that caused the disclosure fell within the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception and thus that the FDA was immune from suit for its disclosures.
• » Natsource, LLC v. GFI Group, Inc. | 
  2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16696 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2004)
  Luring competitor’s employees away, combined with breaches of confidentiality or loyalty, can give rise to antitrust liability but fails to do so where defendant lacks market power.
• » Maw v. Advanced Clinical Communications, Inc. | 
  179 N.J. 439, 846 A.2d 604 (N.J. 2004)
  The New Jersey Supreme Court held, in a matter of first impression, that an employee who is fired for refusing to execute a non-compete agreement has no cause of action against his/her employer under a New Jersey Conscientious Employment Protection Act (CEPA) provision prohibiting an employer from retaliating against an employee who objects to employer requirements that the employee reasonably believes are incompatible with public policy.
• » McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States Dep’t of the Air Force | 
  2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15426 (D.C. Cir. July 27, 2004)
  A contractor’s pricing information was subject to FOIA’s Exemption 4 for trade secrets because release of that information would substantially harm the contractor’s competitive position.
• » Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. NIH | 
  2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12464 (D.D.C. June 29, 2004)
  Research designs developed for noncommercial purposes did not qualify for Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act where the researcher had made no efforts to exploit his design commercially and where the only competitive harm that would result from disclosure arose from the researcher’s potential inability to publish his findings.
• » Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation, Inc. | 
  361 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2004)
  Improper admission of expert testimony related to irrelevant issue of lost profits was harmless error in misappropriation and fraud case.
• » Stone v. Williams General Corp. | 
  2004 Ga. App. Lexis 325 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)
  Georgia law allows recovery for misappropriation of a company’s trade secrets even if the company lacked a written trade secret policy; former employees’ misappropriation of trade secrets can constitute predicate acts under Georgia's RICO statute.
• » Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equipment LLC | 
  No. 00-CVS-10358 (Mecklenburg Co. Sup. Ct. May 2, 2003)
  Conspiring to raid competitor’s employees, customer relationships, and trade secrets led to judgment for unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, and civil conspiracy.
• » United Rentals (North America), Inc. v. Keizer | 
  355 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2004)
  Under Michigan law, for purposes of interpreting a non-competition agreement, “operation” of a competing business in the target area requires that the business be physically located in the target area.
• » Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber | 
  101 Ohio St. 3d 242; 2004 Ohio 786, 804 N.E.2d 27 (2004)
  Under Ohio law, continued employment is sufficient consideration to enforce a non-competition agreement.
• » Osler Institute, Inc. v. Forde
  333 F. 3d 832 (7th Cir. 2003)
  Under Indiana law, a non-compete agreement is void and a tortious interference claim is unsubstantiated where employee learned only publicly available information
• » Harvey Barnett, Inc. v. Shidler
  338 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2003)
  Analysis in the aggregate of a combination of characteristics and components is an integral, substantive component of trade secret analysis.
• » Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. P.O. Market, Inc.
  (Ark. 2002)
  A combination of generally known economic components of a business plan does not constitute a trade secret.