• Shoe store business client, engaging in retail, catalog and internet sales, had customer information hacked by a competitor from server hosting website.  Competitor used information to solicit customers of client just prior to when client ordinarily would contact customers and offered similar discounts to those offered by client.  Competitor was Canadian company and was sued in federal court based on Florida Computer Crimes Act and Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  Case quickly settled for six figures.
  • Manager of real estate brokerage business, also related through marriage to owners, was sued in nine separate counts, including theft of trade secrets, breach of contract, injunction and defamation, among others.  Manager client went to work for another real estate broker.  Case settled with no payment being made by client and client relieved of all restrictions on employment in exchange for releasing claim for attorney fees versus former employer and family member owners.
  • Sued insurance carrier for failing to defend insured business client in litigation in Kentucky brought by competitor over alleged taking of intellectual property by independent contractor of competitor who went to work for client.  Since materials allegedly taken were sales materials related to car dealership promotional marketing asserted on behalf of client that defense should have been provided under advertising injury coverage of insurance policy.  Court agreed and entered judgment on that issue in favor of the client.  Insurance company also attempted to convince court that their liability should be limited to the $2,000,000.00 in policy limits if they lost at trial rather than all of the damages of the client.  On behalf of the client argued, as had been set forth in suit, that insurance company was liable for all damages, not matter the amount, because they had breached the contract with the insured and were therefore liable for all damages that reasonably flowed from that breach.  The court agreed.  At trial insurance company contended that even if they owed a defense they were not liable for the damages of the client.  The client had paid the cost of the defense and some money to the competitor to settle the claim but most significantly had agreed not to compete for four years in this very lucrative area of business.  The jury awarded $18,787,500.0, $18,500.00 of which was lost profits related to the agreement not to compete for four years.
  • A large prominent New York based manufacturer of carpet believed that their trademark, specifically their name, was being infringed upon by a carpet business in Florida.  This manufacturer has manufactured carpet that is in the White House and values their name very highly.  Suit was filed on behalf of the client in federal court for trademark infringement.  A settlement was reached requiring the infringer to cease and desist any further use of the name, not to ever challenge the right to the business client to use the name, and to pay the client a sum of money.  The client obtained complete success with ending the infringement of their trademark.
  • Business client sued by competitor in federal court in Arizona claiming intellectual property infringement.  Sued competitor on behalf of client in federal court in Florida for unfair business practices, including trademark infringement and cyber squatting.  Based on motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the client the Arizona suit was dismissed.  Competitor settled with client prior to trial in Florida on confidential terms.
  • Represented New Jersey based major new home interior finish design and installation company and employees sued by Georgia based competitor/former employer of employees in federal court in Virginia and Florida for trade secret theft under common law and state versions of Uniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of restrictive covenants, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, among other claims. Defeated attempt to obtain injunction and expedited discovery at evidentiary hearing. Defeated repeated attempts to inspect computers, cell phones and other devices. Obtained confidential settlement of both cases on terms satisfactory to clients.