Trade Secrets

Noncompetes and Trade Secret Litigation

The law firm of Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A. has successfully handled hundreds of non-compete and trade secret cases over the years and it has significant expertise and experience in this area. This practice group touches on a number of different departments, including employment law, litigation, and intellectual property. The common goal in all of these areas of law is that of protecting the right to free and fair competition, balanced with the right of parties to voluntarily enter into restrictive contracts, which limit that freedom.

Noncompetes and Restrictive Covenants

Noncompete Agreements and other restrictive covenants are often used by employers to restrict the ability of employees to compete once they leave that business. The area of noncompetes is often linked with that of trade secrets because both relate to the ability of businesses to compete with each other. Most of the attorneys in the firm's Employment Law Department have had significant experience drafting, enforcing and contesting covenants not to compete. Marshall H. Tanick, Phillip J. Trobaugh, and Teresa J. Ayling, especially have had many cases in this area and have lectured and written extensively on the topic as well.

Trade Secrets

Trade secrets are the only type of intellectual property predominately governed by state law. Unlike the protection provided by a patent, which relies on the publication of the processor and invention to the outside world, protection for a trade secret is possible only so long as it is kept confidential. Trade secret law today is largely governed by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"). In one form or another, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act has been adopted by over 39 states and the District of Columbia. The Act was adopted in Minnesota in 1982 and codified at Minn. Stat. (or section) 325C.01, et seq.

Recent Successes

The law firm of Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A., has had many successful examples of representation both in litigation and outside of litigation. For example:

Charles Horowitz represents a former executive of a local finance company in a noncompete lawsuit filed by plaintiff, an international bank, in federal court in the District of Minnesota in 2006.
Stephen H. Parsons wins a trial for his client, a computer wholesaling company, against a rival competitor dealer for damages resulting from noncompete and contract claims. Mr. Parsons won on all accounts. GCM, Inc. vs. Computer Dealers & Recyclers Global, Inc. et al., File No. 19-C2-05-6785 (Dakota Cty. Dist. Ct., June 16, 2006).
Shawn L. Pearson and V. John Ella successfully defeated motions for a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction in federal court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of their client, a commercial realtor from New York. Timm & Associates v. Broad, 2005 Westlaw 3241832 (D. Minn. 2005)
Marshall H. Tanick, and Phillip J. Trobaugh successfully defeated a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction in Minnesota State District Court on behalf of their clients, a local insurance brokerage firm, and two of its insurance agents. Twin Cities Special Risk, LLC vs. Janowiec, et al., File No. CT-05-16434 (Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct., Dec. 7, 2005) (Leung, J.)
Marshall H. Tanick, and Phillip J. Trobaugh successfully defeated a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction brought by a large, multi-national software manufacturing company against one of its former employees. International Decision Systems, Inc. v. Williams, File No. CT-05-12973 (Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct., Oct. 18, 2005) (Karasov, J.)
Marshall H. Tanick represented a dentist who sold his business to another dentist and continued working at the dental facility, subject to a non-compete agreement, successfully prevailed in a non-compete lawsuit by the new employer in the lawsuit brought in Hennepin County District Court in 2005. The new employer failed to pay the dentist compensation after the dentist continued to work for the new facility following the sale. The non-payment constituted a defense for the dentist in fending off a non-compete agreement when he took a job with a different dental clinic.
Marshall H. Tanick represented the owner of a beauty salon succeeded in enforcing a noncompete agreement against a group of cosmetologists who left the business to join a competitor in 2005. The noncompete agreement included a clause restricting future employment within five miles of the former facility. The employer established that the new facility was located within the five-mile distance and, therefore, was able to enforce the noncompete agreement in an action in Ramsey County District Court.
Marshall H. Tanick successfully obtained a dismissal on summary judgment of a claim against a Missouri advertising executive who had been sued for misappropriation of trade secrets.
Seymour J. Mansfield successfully resolved a case for a local business in the optical character recognition and scannable forms industry alleging allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets.
Marshall H. Tanick successfully defeated a Motion for Injunctive Relief brought by one printing company against another regarding trade secrets allegedly possessed by a departing salesperson.
Marshall H. Tanick and Phillip J. Trobaugh settled, on favorable terms, a dispute between two roofing companies involving Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio law.
Seymour J. Mansfield represents a major medical device company with regard to drafting and enforcing its noncompete agreements around the country.
Seymour J. Mansfield successfully defeated a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in a trade secrets case on behalf of an audiometric testing company.

Contact Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A. regarding non-competes and trade secrets. Call our Minneapolis office at 612.339.4295 or e-mail one of our restrictive covenant attorneys.

For a list of ways to protect your company's trade secrets, see 17 Tips for Protection Your Company's Trade Secrets.

For more on this topic, see the following articles: