Trade Secrets | SC Noncompete Lawyer

Land of the Lost: The Antiquated Notion of Geographically Based Non-Competes

Andy Arnold — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:58:05 +0000

The more non-compete matters I review and litigate the more certain I am that geographically based non-competition covenants should be per se unenforceable.

The post Land of the Lost: The Antiquated Notion of Geographically Based Non-Competes first appeared on SC Noncompete Lawyer.

A Bimbo By Any Other Name: Third Circuit Upholds “Inevitable Disclosure” Injunction

Andy Arnold — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:29:44 +0000

In Bimbo Sues the Muffin Man, I briefly discussed the inevitable disclosure case filed by Bimbo Bakeries against a former…

The post A Bimbo By Any Other Name: Third Circuit Upholds “Inevitable Disclosure” Injunction first appeared on SC Noncompete Lawyer.

Judge Sides With Bimbo

Andy Arnold — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:38:34 +0000

"In his 37-page opinion in Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc. v. Botticella, U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick granted a preliminary injunction, ruling that Chris Botticella, a former senior vice president at Bimbo, cannot start to work for Hostess Inc.

The post Judge Sides With Bimbo first appeared on SC Noncompete Lawyer.

Inevitable Disclosure: Bimbo Sues Muffin Man

Andy Arnold — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:58:17 +0000

An inevitable disclosure case recently filed in federal court in Pennsylvania. To prevent disclosure of its trade secrets, Bimbo Bakeries asked a judge to keep the former manager from working for a competitor. Although, he had not even signed a noncompete.

The post Inevitable Disclosure: Bimbo Sues Muffin Man first appeared on SC Noncompete Lawyer.

Sharing Pricing with Customers Undercuts Trade Secret Claim

Andy Arnold — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:45:20 +0000

In Southwest Stainless, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that although pricing generally may be protectable, a court needs look at the specific pricing at issue in the case to determine whether the company protected that pricing. Ultimately, the Court in Southwest Stainless held that sharing pricing with a customer, without restriction, removes any claim of confidentiality that may have existed.

The post Sharing Pricing with Customers Undercuts Trade Secret Claim first appeared on SC Noncompete Lawyer.

Inevitable Disclosure: Who Really Owns Your Brain?

Andy Arnold — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:56:52 +0000

Conceptually, there is something disturbing about creating a rule out of thin air that an employer loading its information onto…

The post Inevitable Disclosure: Who Really Owns Your Brain? first appeared on SC Noncompete Lawyer.

Inevitable Disclosure: An Introduction to the Invisible Non-Compete

Andy Arnold — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:35:06 +0000

The doctrine of inevitable disclosure represents another phase in the evolution of the common law’s permissive attitude toward covenants not to compete, since the doctrine permits a court to prohibit an employee from competing with his former employer even in the absence of any contract.

The post Inevitable Disclosure: An Introduction to the Invisible Non-Compete first appeared on SC Noncompete Lawyer.

When are Client Lists Trade Secrets? A Case Study: Atwood Agency v. Black

Andy Arnold — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:16:52 +0000

A recurring issue in my practice is whether information known by a former employee is a “trade secret.” Many times the information at issue is a client list or simply the identify of clients and/or customers. The South Carolina Supreme Court considered this issue in the case of Atwood Agency v. Black, 374 S.C. 68, 646 S.E.2d 882 (S.C. 2007).

The post When are Client Lists Trade Secrets? A Case Study: Atwood Agency v. Black first appeared on SC Noncompete Lawyer.

E-Discovery: You can delete, but you can’t hide.

Andy Arnold — Sun, 17 May 2009 03:17:12 +0000

E-discovery is the new trend in litigation; it is here to stay. Every lawsuit involves discovery, now, because many documents exist in electronic form on computer hard drives, electronic files are also subjects for discovery.

The post E-Discovery: You can delete, but you can’t hide. first appeared on SC Noncompete Lawyer.

What’s (all the) Muckenfuss about? Trade Secrets and Non-Disclosure Provisions

Andy Arnold — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:33:54 +0000

In Carolina Chemical Equipment Company v. Muckenfuss, 322 S.C. 289, 471 S.E.2d 721 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996), the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that when a broad trade secret provision “basically has the effect of a covenant to to compete, [the Court] must subject it to the same scrutiny as a covenant not to compete.” Although the South Carolina legislature attempted to limit the holding of Muckenfuss the following year, the case remains important for several reasons: It began the difficult task of culling “trade secrets” from general business information as well as because it did so in the defense of an employee’s right to work.

The post What’s (all the) Muckenfuss about? Trade Secrets and Non-Disclosure Provisions first appeared on SC Noncompete Lawyer.