Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.
DYNAVOX SYSTEMS LLC v. EFFECTIVE UI, INC., ET AL.
DISTRICT OF COLORADO (DENVER)
1:11-CV-01259
FILED: 5/11/2011
If you are a contractor, when can you talk about projects you’ve been working on? This is going to be defined in your contract with your customer. Make sure before any of your sales people discuss or disclose the details of your company’s experience you have reviewed the pertinent contracts and cleared your sales or business people to discuss the work.
Dynavox is the world’s leading provider of communication and education products for individuals with significant speech, language, and learning disabilities. The Defendant was engaged as a contractor to develop a highly confidential and proprietary software application and the contractor announced the existence of the development project and the eventual release of the application which included false and misleading information.
Dynavox alleges trademark infringement, false description, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract and requests extensive injunctive relief along with actual damages, an accounting and disgorgement of profits, destruction of infringing materials, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1498.
CORE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C. v. CORETECH INTERNATIONAL, INC. and MO EL BANNA
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (DETROIT)
2:11-CV-12129
FILED: 5/13/2011
The question of what constitutes a trade secret can be quite perplexing. When an employee leaves a business and goes to work for a competitor what information can that employee use in their new position? It is not unusual to see lawsuits aimed at the new employer and a former employee so make sure that you vet the information base and avoid using a former employer’s trade secrets.
Core Systems in engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling and servicing core cutting machines. The individual Defendant was affiliated with the Plaintiff and allegedly acquired certain trade secrets that he subsequently used to design, manufacture, and service competing products.
Claims in the lawsuit include false designation of origin, misappropriation of trade secrets, common law unfair competition, unjust enrichment, violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and non-entitlement to trademark registrations. Relief requested includes preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages, punitive and exemplary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1499.
