March 2006

Oral Argument in eBay v. MercExchange (updated)

March 31, 2006

Patents. Here is a summary of the oral argument before the Supreme Court earlier this week, in the eBay v. MercExchange case, discussed earlier in this blog. [link] The summary of oral argument (which apparently gave no clear clues to the outcome) is on the excellent SCOTUSblog [link]. UPDATE (April 18, 2006): Here is a link to the transcript of oral argument before the Supreme Court [link] The argument contains a humorous exchange between Carter Phillips, counsel for eBay, and Justice Kennedy: Phillips: [references "patent trolls" in his argument] Justice Kennedy: Well, is — is the troll the scary thing under the bridge, or is it a fishing technique? I– I want – (laughter)

Read the full article →

No New Consideration, No Enforceable Noncompete

March 29, 2006

Noncompete Agreements. Clients frequently present the following issue: we have existing employees who have not signed noncompete agreements. We’d like to ask them to sign them. Any problem with that? The knowledgeable lawyer then struggles with the following question: does the employee need to be given some consideration for the noncompete to be enforceable? Consideration is not an issue when an employee signs a noncompete at the beginning of employment, since the job itself provides the consideration. But when the employee already has the job, does the employer have to give the employee some new consideration? – a raise, a bonus, a promotion? There is a line of Massachusetts cases suggesting that continued employment (for an at-will employee) is itself adequate consideration, but the rule is not as clear as most lawyers would like, and many lawyers are forced to equivocate on this issue. And, some states have clearly held that continued employment is not adequate consideration, adding to the uncertainty. In a decision issued on February 2, 2006 in Metropolitan Removal Co. v. D.S.I. Removal Specialists, Inc. [click here for the decision] Superior Court Judge Peter Agnes, a well-respected judge in Massachusetts, held that a noncompete agreement was not enforceable where the employee did not receive new consideration. Citing no cases one way or the other, Judge Agnes noted that the employee “did not receive consideration in return for…

Read the full article →

What Did You Say Your Trade Secrets Were?

March 27, 2006

Trade Secrets, Procedure. Warning: if you’re seeking discovery in a trade secret case in the Suffolk Business Litigation Session make sure that you have (a) provided the court with a detailed description of your trade secrets, and (b) filed a protective order that strictly complies with the Uniform Rules of of Impoundment. For a recent decision making these points, written by Judge Allan Van Gestel in the Suffolk Business Litigation Session, click [here]. The decision, Tourtellotte Solutions, Inc. v. Tradestone Software, Inc., was featured on the front page of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly last October. In a nutshell, the plaintiff asked for expedited discovery (in other words, the right to take discovery on a schedule faster than allowed in the ordinary course by the rules of civil procedure), so that the plaintiff could obtain evidence necessary to bring a preliminary injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff’s basic claim was that the defendant had engaged in “software misappropriation,” a term that Judge Van Gestel stated “sounds very much like trade secret misappropriation.” The judge denied the motion, stating: “a detailed description of what is claimed to be a trade secret must be provided and a protective order of some sort needs to be worked out.” Neither conclusion is surprising in the least. Many decisions in trade secret cases have held that the plaintiff must identify its trade secrets with particularity. The courts…

Read the full article →

Oral Argument Upcoming in eBay v. MercExchange

March 22, 2006

Patents. On Wednesday, March 29, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear oral argument in eBay v. MercExchange. The issue is whether the owner of a patent (in this case MercExchange) has the right to enjoin (or stop) an infringer (eBay) from selling an infringing product or service – in this case eBay’s popular “Buy It Now” (or, to eBay aficionados, “BIN”) purchase feature. A jury has already found that eBay infringed MercExchange’s patent on this technology, and MercExchange is attempting to invoke the general rule that a successful patent plaintiff can shut down an infringing product, pending appeal. It was just this threat — the threat of a shut down — that led to Research in Motion paying a $612.5 million settlement to NTP in February. eBay is asking SCOTUS to modify the traditional rule and permit it to continue to use this service pending appeal. In patent circles this is a very big deal, and the outcome is expected to be a “landmark case.” For an interesting discussion of the patent policy issues underlying this dispute see the article by Sam Williams in the MIT Enterprise Technology Review [link]. For a primer on software injunctions, and links to many of the briefs filed in the case, see this article in the “Patently O” patent blog [link].

Read the full article →

Massachusetts Business Court Sanctions Company for Pursuing Frivolous Case to Enforce Noncompete Agreement

March 21, 2006

Noncompete Agreements. If I had a dollar for every time a client who had been sued asked me if they could recover attorney’s fees or damages if they won, I’d have, well, probably hundreds of dollars. Even when a lawsuit proves to be frivolous the Massachusetts courts have traditionally been extremely reluctant to turn the tables on a plaintiff and make it pay damages for the harm its suit has caused to the defendant. Every once in a while, however, a judge shows some courage and punishes a company the judge concludes has brought a frivolous case. In January 2006 Judge Gants, in the Suffolk Business Litigation Session, turned the tables on Brooks Automation, a Massachusetts company with a billion dollar-plus market valuation, ordering it to pay over $600,000 in damages for bringing a frvolous lawsuit against a former employee. After a trial Judge Gants concluded that the suit was devoid of both any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law. A link to the decision is [here]. Judge Gants found that the suit, which Brooks brought against a former employee and a new company he had formed to compete with Brooks (but which was not, as yet, actually competing), had been filed with “reckless disregard” for its merits and to disrupt a potential relationship between the former employee and one of Brooks’ customers (Brooks actually emailed the…

Read the full article →

Supreme Court Weighs in on Patents, Antitrust and Market Power

March 20, 2006

Patents, Antitrust. Suppose that you live in a small farming community, Village 1, that relies entirely on its own members for food supplies. I have the only farm that grows corn. Whenever you come to me to purchase corn I tell you that I will only sell you my corn if you also buy a pound of cauliflower for every pound of corn you purchase. Cauliflower is plentiful, and you don’t want to buy my cauliflower (in fact you don’t even like this vegetable), but since you (and your fellow citizens) need corn you have no choice. Assume that you move to a new community, Village 2. You still need corn, but you discover that there are several purveyors of corn in your new town. You go to the closest of these, and you discover, to your dismay, that this farmer also insists that if you buy his corn, you must also buy his cauliflower. Before purchasing you check around, and learn that the other corn vendors do not require that you purchase cauliflower as a condition to purchasing corn, and you happily proceed to do business only with them in the future. You later learn, to your satisfaction, that the corn farmer that you first encountered in Village 2 has gone out of business. Thie simple example illustrates one of the more complex and vexing doctrines of U.S. antitrust…

Read the full article →

Noncompete Litigation in the Massachusetts Courts: 2005 Year in Review (Part I)

March 8, 2006

Noncompete Agreements. Our firm used to write “year in review” articles [link], and I decided it was time for a reprise. Here is a year-in-review summary of the most significant Massachsetts state court cases from late 2004 through calender year 2005 involving the attempted enforcement of noncompete or nonsolicitation contracts. Rather than getting bogged down in the detailed facts of the cases I’ll provide a quick summary of the key facts and legal issues that led to the outcome in each case. The goal is to get a feel for how judges are approaching these kinds of cases – what works and doesn’t work in the state courts when employers are attempting to enforce noncompete/nonsolicitation agreements against former employees. L-3 Communications v. Reveal Imaging [link] involved a complex series of corporate sales, the result of which was that the defendant-employees were several corporate acquisitions down the road from the companies with whom they had signed their agreements years earlier. Their new employer, who had “acquired” the employees via acquisitions, had failed to require the employees to enter into new agreements. Tough luck for the plaintiffs, as Judge Van Gestel concluded in the Suffolk Business Litigation Session in a decision issued on December 2, 2004. One of the employees had signed a noncompete agreement with a company that wasn’t even a predecessor-in-interest with the plaintiff. Another group of employees had signed…

Read the full article →