When two former sales directors of a private jet service opened their own company operating in direct competition with our client, we filed a complaint that helped protect our client’s position in the marketplace. Persuaded by the evidence we presented, the court issued a preliminary injunction against the former employees for violating confidentiality, noncompetition, and nonsolicitation agreements. They were ordered to return confidential materials and refrain from further violating their contracts, soliciting our client’s customers, and working with the new company for a period of five years.

Our attorneys defended three new sales professionals at an Israeli start-up medical device company when they were served with a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction by their previous employer. Although that company had proof that one of the individuals e-mailed company business files to his personal account, we discovered multiple gaps in the two defendants’ confidentiality agreements, and revealed that they had been allowed to remain at the company an additional two weeks after their resignations — with computer access. The judge denied the motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

Mintz Levin represented a start-up client in a confidential arbitration involving the former chief technology officer (CTO) of the company who had filed in his own name key patents related to the company’s core technology and intellectual property. The arbitration was languishing and focused on the former CTO’s claims against the company until Mintz Levin was retained. Our attorneys then changed the strategy of the company, filed an amended claim against the CTO with claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and misappropriation of trade secrets and then prevailed on a motion to dismiss those claims, which led to the company being assigned all of the patents as well as getting the return of all of its proprietary information.

Mintz Levin represented a chief financial officer (CFO) who was alleged to have misappropriated trade secrets when he attempted to bring a management buyout plan to the attention of the company’s board of directors. When the board learned of the plans, the company filed suit against the CFO, claiming that information the CFO gleaned during his employment must have been disclosed in the process of preparing the management buyout plan. Mintz Levin made new law when the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment against the CFO, clarifying the meaning of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Mintz Levin also successfully obtained full indemnity for the CFO with respect to the legal fees and costs associated with this litigation.

We represented a San Diego-based medical device company in an arbitration brought by a direct competitor alleging that our client’s employment of its former executive violated the executive’s two-year noncompete agreement. We obtained a verdict in the arbitration that included a reduction in the executive’s noncompete agreement to just one year, which allowed for the executive to begin work at our clients company shortly after the completion of the arbitration.