Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In plaintiff's case against its competitor, involved in the life sciences equipment market, for unfair competition arising from hiring of plaintiff's employee, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court had proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims; 2) court did not err in refusing to dismiss the claims against defendants in Rhode Island for improper venue, nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for transfer of venue; 3) defendants have failed to demonstrate that the non-competition provision in the Employee Agreement is unenforceable, and as such, defendant's argument that they could not have interfered with the Employment Agreement fails; 4) defendant need not have shown that either the employee nor defendant used plaintiff's trade secrets, as disclosure or acquisition is sufficient to constitute misappropriation, subjecting defendant to liability for actual loss and unjust enrichment; 5) viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence supports the damage award; and 6) district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings as defendant failed to preserve some of its claims and failed to adequately develop others.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Decided October 22, 2009
Opinion by Woodcock, District Judge
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.