There have been some noteworthy recent decisions in trade secrets law. This blog post summarizes some of the significant decisions grouped by the hot topics below.
There have been some noteworthy recent decisions in trade secrets law. This blog post summarizes some of the significant decisions grouped by the hot topics below.
The
Illinois Trade Secrets Act (“ITSA”), which is consistent with both other states that have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal
Defend Trade Secrets Act, allows the recovery of attorneys’ fees for a party who has been forced to defend against a trade secret claim made in bad faith.
See 765 ILCS 1065/5. This fee shifting provision provides an important mechanism to obtain relief for defendants who are forced to incur significant legal fees fighting baseless claims.
In a
recent decision of the 1st Appellate District of Illinois,
Multimedia Sales & Marketing, Inc. v. Marison Marzullo, et al., 2020 IL App (1st) 191790, the court affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees incurred by defendants under the bad faith fee shifting provision of the ITSA. Plaintiff Multimedia Sales & Marketing, Inc. (“MSM”) sued one of its competitors, Radio Advertising, Inc. (“RAI”) and three of its former employees who joined RAI, alleging that the former employees mi
The recent case of
Multimedia Sales & Marketing, Inc. v. Marzullo, et al., N.E.3d -, 2020 IL App (1st) 191790 (1st Dist. Dec. 21, 2020), demonstrates the peril that attorney fees sanctions present for litigants who bring trade secret misappropriation claims in bad faith.
Like the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (“ITSA”) allows litigants to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending “bad faith” misappropriation claims.
See18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D); 765 ILCS 1065/5. Illinois courts interpret claims of bad faith in conjunction with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 an analogue to Federal Rule 11 that obligates Illinois attorneys to only bring actions that are well-grounded in fact, warranted by existing law (or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law), and not for an improper purpose. Section 5 of ITSA complements Rule 137’s obligations and provides a mechanism for courts to penalize