Challenging a Trade Secret Injunction? Better Come Loaded For Bear

by James Kachmar
The IP Law Blog

One of the most common forms of relief sought in trade secret litigation is an injunction preventing the defendants from using or disclosing the plaintiff’s trade secret information.  Although temporary restraining orders and/or preliminary injunctions may be obtained that are in place during the lawsuit, a permanent injunction is entered after trial and typically has no set time period for expiration.  There are various statutes that allow a defendant to seek to modify or dissolve a trade secret injunction at a later date,

Read More

Co-Worker Non-Solicitation Provisions in Jeopardy?

by James Kachmar
The Labor & Employment Law Blog

For years, California courts have recognized the right of employers to use non-solicitation provisions in employment agreements to prevent employees from “soliciting” their coworkers to join them at a new employer.  For instance, in 1985, a California appellate court in Loral Corp v. Moyes, 174 Cal.App.3d 268 (1985), held that a non-solicitation of fellow employees provision in an employment agreement was lawful because the co-workers were free to seek employment with a competitor, they just couldn’t be contacted first by the departing employee.

Read More

Trademark Assignability Laid Bare

by James Kachmar
The IP Law Blog

Full length image of attorney James Kachmar

Crazy Horse was a legendary Native American chief of the Oglala Lakota tribe who lived during the second half of the 1800s.  Unfortunately today, his name may be more familiar as a brand for various products, such as motorcycle gear, whiskey, rifles and strip clubs.  In Russell Road Food & Beverage, LLC v. Spencer, et al., the Ninth Circuit was faced with the issue of the assignability of the trademark “Crazy Horse” in a lawsuit between two strip club operators in Las Vegas,

Read More

California Court Confirms No Absolute Public Policy Against Non-Competes Entered into by Partners

by Charles L. Post
The Labor & Employment Law Blog

California’s prohibition on non-competition agreements is less than absolute.  For example, non-compete agreements may be enforced against partners or sellers of businesses.  Additionally, in SingerLewak LLP v. Andrew Gantman (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 610, a California Appellate Court affirmed an arbitration award that would be considered by most to be a misapplication of California’s non-competition law.

The underlying dispute arises from provision within a partnership agreement that imposed a cost on a departing partner (Gantman) who serviced clients of the firm after his departure. 

Read More

Hidden Pitfalls of Old Non-Compete Provisions

by James Kachmar
The IP Law Blog

Companies and employers around the country seek to protect their intellectual property by, among other things, using non-compete provisions in employment agreements. Generally, these provisions are intended to prevent an employee from soliciting or doing business with a former employer’s customer/clients over a set period of time and/or in regard to a set geographical area. Under California law, and specifically Business and Professions Code section 16600, such provisions are unenforceable unless they fall within one of the statutory exceptions,

Read More

Hey, that’s my beer! I think…

by Josh H. Escovedo
The IP Law Blog

In the bustling craft brew economy brewers are faced with new issues every day. One that recently came to my attention arises when the craft brewery’s brewmaster or head brewer decides to either start his own craft brewery, or go to work for another brewery. While this may not initially seem like a big deal, it gets much more complicated when that brewmaster or brewer is responsible for the creation of your flagship brew. The question arises: who owns the intellectual property rights to that brew?

Read More

Tech Companies Reach New Settlement in Anti-Poaching Cases

By James Kachmar

This blog has previously reported on the anti-poaching cases involving various tech companies in Silicon Valley. The cases arise out of alleged agreements between various tech companies not to recruit each other’s employees. The U.S. Department of Justice brought antitrust actions as a result of these alleged agreements which resulted in the companies entering into settlements with the government. In addition to the government’s actions, a class action was filed on behalf of tech employees claiming these “anti-poaching” agreements harmed their earning ability and mobility.

Read More

A Noncompete To Go With Your Sandwich?

By James Kachmar

A few months ago, this blog noted that there was press coverage about the nationwide increase in the use of noncompete agreements in various industries.  A story that has made the rounds in the past week illustrates this point clearly.  Jimmy Johns, a “gourmet sandwich” franchise, has apparently been inserting noncompete provisions in its employment agreements, including those employees who work on the line making sandwiches.  The noncompete provision purportedly seeks to prevent employees from working for a competitor,

Read More