Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 6

3.4.10    By Joe Kelly    Tags , ,

The last few posts have considered the Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC v Keymon case and its holdings on the issues of trade secrets, non-competes, and damages. So, what is the final take-away from this case? While there are many interesting issues in the case, there are three key points to remember.

First, the Court granted trade secret protection to categories of information that in the past have often been held to not constitute trade secrets. In doing so, it appears that Keymon’s decision to e-mail herself client related information the day before she left Hamilton-Ryker tipped the balance in favor of a finding of trade secret protection.

Second, the “non-compete” in the case was enforced without a geographic limitation. This was because it was really a non-solicitation agreement. Keymon arguably could have started competing next door, the day after leaving Hamilton-Ryker, so long as she had not solicited Hamilton-Ryker’s customers.

Third, it is clear that exemplary damages under Tennessee’s Trade Secret Act are easier to obtain than traditional punitive damages. This is because the proof of malice for the showing of a “willful malicious misappropriation” under the Act does not require the showing of “hatred, ill will or spite” required to show malice under traditional punitive damages case law.


Related content

  1. Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 4
  2. Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 3
  3. Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 5

Comments