Many companies derive their value from confidential information they have developed over years of hard work, such as customer lists, formulas, pricing information and other types of information. This information may be considered a trade secret under Connecticut law. Companies protect this information through confidentiality agreements with employees and vendors. A company’s assets also include its employees and the valuable confidential information each employee learns from the company. Non-competition and non-solicitation agreements are important tools in protecting this information when an employee leaves your company. These agreements can offer substantial protection and can help keep key information from being used to unfairly compete against your company.
Our firm has extensive experience in the litigation of restrictive covenants in employment agreements, such as non-competition or non-solicitation agreements. We have obtained preliminary and permanent injunctions on behalf of major corporations, and have also successfully defended former employees from enforcement of those agreements. The firm also counsels employers on drafting effective non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.
We love learning about your business and your product, so we can help protect it in high-stakes litigation. Learn about our recent trade secrets battle. In another example, one of three top companies in the world lost its Director of Chemical Engineering to a competitor. That person knew everything about the company’s product, its design, improvements, flaws and strengths, and took that knowledge with him to the competitor. We worked with the company to learn the product, and defend the product against the competitor’s use of the employee’s knowledge and know-how. Download and read Judge Pinkus’s decision in this case (PDF).
Tony's firm defended our company against trade secret and unfair trade practice claims brought against us by a competitor. The competitor was represented by two attorneys at all times from a large regional law firm. Tony outmatched them every step of the way.
Wow Twitter blocked as sensitive content my tweet about a bill the CT legislature is debating on employment law and wages. I think its a bad bill, but not that bad twitter...
Read MoreCT Gen. Assembly discussing a bill that requires ERs to disclose wage range for a position (could be what you have budgeted) when you offer a job and once a year. I am pretty moderate, and this strikes me as overlegislating. And I am understating. https://t.co/Sxrz4zJcFl
Read More
Bloggers beware. In this case, be thankful. Yesterday the DC district court of appeals reversed denial of SLAPP special motion to dismiss where blogger published alleged defamatory statements uttered by someone else.
Read MoreSCOTUS ruled yesterday Muslims can sue FBI for placing them on no-fly list as retaliation for refusing to cooperate with counterterrorism investigations. Interesting balance on religion and governmental immunity.
Read MoreKind of the way a lawyer should prepare his/her client.
Read MoreThe rush from the cities (NYC mostly) to rural Connecticut and upstate New York is bringing back that lovely old equitable remedy SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE!! Oh I love contracts. And specific performance even more.
Read MoreWith jobless claims so high, more small businesses are fighting unemployment. "Refusing suitable employment," is the biggest issue per DOL. Employers should be prepared with proof of PPE compliance if they want to defeat a claim because they offered the employee their job back. https://t.co/L5kM4L6qCF
Read More
With jobless claims so high, more small businesses are fighting unemployment. "Refusing suitable employment," is the biggest issue per DOL. Employers should be prepared with proof of PPE compliance if they want to defeat a claim because they offered the employee their job back. https://t.co/xoBslJOgLc
Read More
DE Sup. Court, epicenter for biz litigation, answered yesterday a certified question from 9th Circuit.LP must prove reliance and causation when suing GP for failure to disclose material info in one-time request for capital contribution. LP does not get benefit of per se rule.
Read MoreWow. Maybe this isn't that much of a big deal. What was the underlying evidence? With the "but for" standard under federal law this surprises me a bit.
Read More
© 2020 Minchella & Associates, LLC
Disclaimer & Privacy Policy
