Counsel for Lexar in successful jury trial in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County over trade secret misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty involving pioneering flash memory technology. The $465.4 million jury award is the largest in that court’s history and the third largest ever in a U.S. intellectual property trial.

Counsel for Alliant in multi-jurisdictional litigation involving claims of trade secret misappropriation, unfair business practices, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Summary judgment granted voiding non-compete provisions in employment contracts.

Counsel for plaintiff alleging misappropriation of trade secrets (high speed internet network design) and breach of fiduciary duty by AT&T and others. The matter settled on the eve of trial in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County for $400 million, which included a $340 million cash payment by AT&T, and the release of $60 million in bankruptcy reserves.

Counsel for MasterCard in connection with a top executive’s departure to a substantially similar position at a principal competitor, American Express, in violation of a non-competition agreement. Weil successfully negotiated an agreement with American Express memorialized in a court-ordered injunction that precluded the executive from beginning work at American Express for a significant “cooling off” period, and only permitted the executive to begin employment at American Express with multi-stage limitations to protect MasterCard’s confidential strategies.

Counsel to Marsh in an action against the former Head of Marsh’s Hawaii Office, who resigned to become the Head of the Hawaii Office for Marsh’s chief competitor, Aon. Marsh alleged that the former Office Head solicited Marsh employees and clients in violation of his various restrictive covenant agreements. Following extensive, expedited cross-country deposition and document discovery, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Marsh’s motion for a preliminary injunction in full, which, inter alia, precluded Defendant from servicing or supervising the servicing of any former Marsh clients and from soliciting or otherwise interfering with Marsh’s client relationships. Aon also paid Marsh a substantial monetary sum to settle the case. This case broke new ground regarding the broad scope of the injunctive relief awarded to Marsh, the resetting of a one-year restrictive covenant period from the date of the Order and awarding Marsh substantial attorneys’ fees as reimbursement for the expensive litigation.

Counsel for plaintiff in multi-jurisdictional dispute in Texas and New York involving trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract involving third party liability services for state Medicaid agencies. Temporary Injunction granted and adverse inference instruction granted for spoliation of evidence.

Counsel to Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), a leading global retailer that operates the iconic retail banners Saks Fifth Avenue and Lord & Taylor in the U.S., as well as Hudson’s Bay in Canada, among other stores, in connection with the hiring of a new Chief Information Officer, Janet Schalk, who had a non-compete agreement with her prior employer, Kohl’s Department Stores. Weil counseled HBC with respect to the hiring of Ms. Schalk, noting that her non-compete agreement with Kohl’s was overbroad and likely unenforceable. When Kohl’s filed a complaint against Ms. Schalk in Wisconsin state court seeking to enforce the non-compete, Weil then led the litigation defense. In this action, Kohl’s moved for a temporary injunction to block Ms. Schalk from commencing employment with HBC, but after a two-day evidentiary hearing, the judge denied Kohl’s motion based on his finding that Kohl’s failed to show a reasonable probability of success on the merits. Specifically, the judge found that Kohl’s failed to demonstrate that the restriction on Ms. Schalk was reasonably necessary for the protection of Kohl’s business interests. Ms. Schalk, following the court’s denial of Kohl’s motion, has commenced employment as the new CIO of HBC.

Counsel to Intrepid Solutions and Services, Inc. (Intrepid), a Virginia-based defense contractor to the U.S. government, in obtaining the dismissal of restrictive covenant/trade secret litigation brought by a competitor, New York-based International Biometric Group (IBG), arising out of Intrepid’s hiring of a former IBG employee. IBG brought suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York following Intrepid’s hiring of the employee, a former Army colonel, and immediately after Intrepid submitted a bid for a U.S. Army contract regarding biometric intelligence – an area of expertise for both companies. IBG alleged misappropriation of trade secrets against Intrepid and the former employee, and breach of contract and fiduciary duty of loyalty against the former employee, claiming that he was prohibited from working for Intrepid as a result of a Restrictive Covenant Agreement. IBD sought a declaratory judgment to stop the former employee from participating in the bid process. In ruling on Intrepid’s motion to dismiss, the court agreed with our arguments that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over Intrepid, holding that the IBG did not sufficiently plead that Intrepid caused an injury within New York state.

Counsel to solar technology company Specialized Technology Resources, Inc. (STR) in a protracted litigation in connection with statutory and common law misappropriation claims dating back to 2007.

Counsel to Elite Model Management Corp., one of the world’s most renowned modeling agencies, in a vigorously litigated restrictive covenant and trade secrets litigation brought by Men Women NY Model Management, Inc. (Women), a leading industry competitor, in New York Supreme Court. At four separate hearings, we defeated two applications for temporary restraining orders and two applications for preliminary injunctions seeking to restrain four former senior executives of Women from commencing work with Elite and Elite from engaging in various business activities involving the representation and development of fashion models. At these hearings, the Court rejected Women’s claims for, among other things, breach of a broad range of restrictive covenants, breach of fiduciary duties and misappropriation of trade secrets. Following these repeated injunction victories, the case was resolved on extremely favorable terms to our client with no business interruption.