← All use cases
Finding Support
I need support for the proposition that a former employee’s mere knowledge of trade secrets is insufficient to obtain an injunction under the inevitable disclosure doctrine.
I need support for the proposition that a former employee's mere knowledge of trade secrets is insufficient to obtain an injunction under the inevitable disclosure doctrine.
Found 16 cases
Let me review two strong District of Minnesota opinions on this exact point:
Analyzed IBM Corp. v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 98 (D. Minn. 1992)
Analyzed Katch, LLC v. Sweetser, 143 F. Supp. 3d 854 (D. Minn. 2015)
The strongest authority is International Business Machine Corp. v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 98 (D. Minn. 1992).
The court held that “merely possessing trade secrets and holding a comparable position with a competitor does not justify an injunction.” The court denied IBM’s motion for a preliminary injunction, emphasizing that trade secret law “should not act as an ex post facto covenant not to compete.”
International Business Machine Corp. v. Seagate Technology, Inc.
Furthermore, IBM has failed to prove that Bonyhard has actually disclosed any confidential information or trade secrets even though Dr. Bonyhard worked on Seagate's MR heads for rigid disk drives for six months prior to the entry of the earlier preliminary injunction. A trade secret will not be protected by the extraordinary remedy of injunction on mere suspicion or apprehension of injury. There must be a substantial threat of impending injury before an injunction will issue. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. v. Continental Aviation and Engineering Corp., 255 F.Supp. 645, 654 (1966).
Merely showing the existence of trade secrets is not enough. For example, in E.W. Bliss Co. v. Struthers-Dunn, Inc., 408 F.2d 1108 (8th Cir.1969) the Eighth Circuit held that an injunction may issue “to prevent the unauthorized disclosure and use of trade secrets.” Bliss, at 1112. However, in the absence of a covenant not to compete or a finding of actual or an intent to disclose trade secrets, employees “may pursue their chosen field of endeavor in direct competition.”
Merely showing the existence of trade secrets is not enough. For example, in E.W. Bliss Co. v. Struthers-Dunn, Inc., 408 F.2d 1108 (8th Cir.1969) the Eighth Circuit held that an injunction may issue “to prevent the unauthorized disclosure and use of trade secrets.” Bliss, at 1112. However, in the absence of a covenant not to compete or a finding of actual or an intent to disclose trade secrets, employees “may pursue their chosen field of endeavor in direct competition.”
Explore more use cases
Finding Cases
Find case where a non-party hedge fund was served a subpoena for documents relating to trading activity and an alleged short report.How do the Third and Eighth Circuits analyze causation under the AKS? Summarize in a chart.Find a case where farmers sued a paper company for contaminating their farmland with PFAS through industrial sludge application.
Drafting
The other side moved to strike a paragraph of the complaint. I’ve attached their brief and the complaint. Draft the opposition brief.Our client is a mid-size industrial equipment distributor dropped after the manufacturer entered exclusive distribution agreements with two large national chains. Draft the legal standard section for our Sherman Act § 1 opposition brief.Our client’s competitor launched a product under a nearly identical brand name and logo. Draft the legal standard section for our TRO motion for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act in the S.D.N.Y.