Misappropriation Of Confidential Information

33 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Spectrofuge Corp. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc.
  575 F.2d 256· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 67×
  The court held that Beckman's proration policy for ultracentrifuge drives, as applied to Spectrofuge, did not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, but the court reversed the judgment on Spectrofuge's antitrust claims and the attorneys' fee award, affirming the judgment on the co
• United States v. Newman
  664 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-30 ·cited 62×
  The court concurred in reversing the district court's decision, finding the defendant violated the Mail Fraud statute.
• Fisher Stoves, Inc. v. ALL Nighter Stove Works, Inc.
  626 F.2d 193· 1st Cir.· 1980-07-21 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding no likelihood of confusion regarding trademark infringement and unfair competition, nor misappropriation of a trade secret.
• Engelhard Indus., Inc. v. Research Instrumental Corp.
  324 F.2d 347· 9th Cir.· 1963-10-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that file wrapper estoppel did not preclude the patent holder from asserting infringement of claims covering a screen cathode, but affirmed summary judgment on infringement because the accused device lacked a key feature. The court reversed summary judgment on the
• United States v. Italiano
  837 F.2d 1480· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 38×
  The indictment sufficiently alleged a scheme to defraud the county of property (a cable television franchise) through bribery, thus satisfying the mail fraud statute's requirements after McNally.
• Brunswick Corp. v. Jones
  784 F.2d 271· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the covenant not to compete was reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer and thus enforceable, and affirmed the preliminary injunction.
• Reynolds v. Whitin Mach. Works
  167 F.2d 78· 4th Cir.· 1948-03-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the patent was valid and infringed, and that the statute of limitations did not bar recovery for the patent infringement. However, the statute of limitations did apply to the common law claim for misappropriation of confidential information.
• Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp.
  377 F.2d 344· 10th Cir.· 1967-04-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the jury's verdict against the appellant on the essential elements of her claim for misappropriation of confidential information was supported by the evidence, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings or instructions.
• SUN Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equip. Leasing, Inc.
  872 F.2d 978· Fed. Cir.· 1989-03-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a reasonable jury could find patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and that the district court erred in granting judgment n.o.v. on patent validity and infringement.
• Pachmayr GUN Works, Inc. v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp. Winchester W. Div.
  502 F.2d 802· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the 'White Line' trademark is valid based on stare decisis, but the 'multiple-X' trademark is invalid due to functionality. The court affirmed the finding of unfair competition for trade secret misappropriation but remanded for a determination of actual damage
• Am. Eutectic Weeding Alloys Sales Co., Inc. v. Dytron Alloys Corp.
  439 F.2d 428· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that individual defendants transacted business in New York sufficient for jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, but the corporate defendant did not commit a tortious act causing injury within New York.
• Equifax Servs., Inc. v. Hitz
  905 F.2d 1355· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the defendant and did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, setting the bond amount, or denying a motion to transfer venue.
• Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp.
  405 F.2d 165· 10th Cir.· 1968-12-31 ·cited 12×
  A preliminary petition requesting permission to file a motion for a new trial under Rule 60(b) with the appellate court is unnecessary.
• In re Cinematronics, Inc. v. Electronic Sports Research
  916 F.2d 1444· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 8×
  Bankruptcy courts cannot conduct jury trials in noncore proceedings, and claims against a non-debtor in his individual capacity are noncore. A Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on such claims must be heard in the district court.
• FMC Corp. v. Boesky
  852 F.2d 981· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without a comprehensive analysis of the complaint's allegations.
• KL Grp. v. Case
  829 F.2d 909· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the scope of legal representation, precluding summary judgment, but affirmed the protective order barring use of an inadvertently produced privileged letter.
• Buckingham Corp. v. Karp
  762 F.2d 257· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a revised preliminary injunction could be entered to prevent Karp from continuing business relationships and disclosing confidential information.
• E.T. Mfg. Co. v. Xomed, Inc.
  679 F. Supp. 1082· M.D. Fla.· 1987-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the patent holder's unreasonable and inexcusable delay in filing suit, which prejudiced the alleged infringer, barred recovery of damages for patent infringement under the doctrine of laches, and that the misappropriation claim was barred by the statute of lim
• AEB Biochemical USA v. Smith
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-21
  The court held that a forum selection clause in a separation agreement is enforceable and that claims for breach of fiduciary duty, civil theft, conversion, and fraud are not extinguished by the agreement as a novation. However, the claim for breach of the implied covenant of goo
• Transaction ID 76118162 Case No. 2024-1334-JTL
  Del. Ch.· 2025-03-07
  The Court of Chancery denied WorkCo., Inc. d/b/a Toku's motion to compel LiquiFi, Inc. to apply Toku's proposed search terms, adopting the Special Discovery Magistrate's report. The court found that while parties have discretion in choosing discovery methodologies, they must cond
• Enhabit, Inc. v. Nautic P'rs IX, L.P.
  Del. Ch.· 2024-12-02
  The court held that former officers April Anthony, Luke James, and Chris Walker breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty to Encompass by usurping corporate opportunities, soliciting employees, and misappropriating confidential information to form a competing business. The priva
• Kova Commercial of Naples, LLC v. Sabin
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-23
  The court held that the parties' contract allowed for interim injunctive relief in court, even when the underlying claim was subject to arbitration.
• Kova Commercial of Naples, LLC v. Sabin
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-06
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, finding the breach of contract claim must be arbitrated and stayed, while the Defend Trade Secrets Act claim was dismissed without prejudice for failing to adequately plead the interstate commerce element.
• Kova Commercial of Naples, LLC v. Sabin
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-04
  The court held that the non-solicitation clause in the operating agreement unambiguously restricts the defendant from soliciting any of the plaintiff's current or prospective clients, and that the restrictive covenants are valid under Florida law.
• Kova Commercial of Naples, LLC v. Sabin
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-18
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff's pleading was deficient and the relevant contract clauses were not provided.
• Kova Commercial of Naples, LLC v. Sabin
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-17
  The court denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because it failed to establish the irreparable nature of the threatened injury and the impracticality of providing notice to the defendant.
• GXP Cap., LLC
  Del.· 2021-05-20
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision to stay a case on forum non conveniens grounds. The Court held that a non-exclusive forum selection clause does not waive the right to object to venue in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, the Court found that the t
• Off. Depot, Inc. v. Babb
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-03-19
  The court granted a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the breach of contract claim due to the violation of an enforceable non-compete agreement.
• The Hurry Fam. Revocable Tr. v. Frankel
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-01-14
  The court held that the plaintiffs' motion to compel was untimely and denied it, along with requests for sanctions and fees.
• Wiggins v. Physiologic Assessment SEK Vices
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2016-06-03
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to dismiss. Counts II (unfair competition), III (tortious interference with contractual relationships), and IV (misappropriation of trade secrets) were dismissed as barred by Pennsylvania's gist of the action doc
• Sustainable Energy Generation Grp., LLC v. Civil Action No. 8524-VCP Photon Energy Projects B.V.
  Del. Ch.· 2014-05-30
  The Delaware Court of Chancery held that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants, that service of process was adequate under the Hague Convention, and that the plaintiff adequately stated claims for breach of contract and misappropriation of confidential information. How
• Braddock
  Del.· 2006-09-12
  The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's order granting leave to file a second amended derivative complaint. The Court held that a dismissal without prejudice, unless expressly accompanied by leave to amend within a specific timeframe, constitutes a final judgm
• Raber v. Osprey Alaska, Inc.
  965 F. Supp. 2d 353· M.D. Fla.· 1999-06-17
  The court held that the plaintiffs' amended complaint sufficiently pleaded claims for breach of contract and fraud to survive a motion to dismiss, as the allegations met the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9(b).