Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Tower Communications v. TSC Construction — District Court Rejects Personal Jurisdiction in Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Case — Chicago Business Dispute Lawyers

February 2, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

The district court rejected personal jurisdiction over a business and two of its employees where the alleged breach of contract and tortious interference occurred in a different state, and the employees and business lacked sufficient contacts with Illinois to justify jurisdiction.

Tower Communications and TSC Construction are competitors in the business of building and repairing wireless communication infrastructure. In 2017, both companies were working on an infrastructure construction project that spanned North and South Carolina. Tower sued TSC, alleging that during this project TSC poached Tower’s employees, Gary Juknevicius and Ruslan Tulegenov, and that TSC obtained confidential information from the poached employees and used that information to benefit its business.

The employment agreements that Juknevicius and Tulegenov had provided that they could not work for a competing company that worked on the same project as Tower for a period of six months after their employment ended. The agreement also prevented the employees from soliciting Tower’s employees, and from disclosing confidential information to a competitor. Included in the agreements was an arbitration clause. Continue reading ›

USAA v. PLS — Bank’s Negligence Suit Dismissed Against Check Cashing Company — Chicago Business Dispute Lawyers near Oak Brook and Naperville

January 29, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A bank’s negligence suit against a check-cashing company was dismissed when the district court found that there was no private right of action under which the bank could sue to enforce regulations regarding the safeguarding of personal financial information.

USAA provides banking services to members and veterans of the United States military. PLS Group, Inc. provides payday loan and check cashing services at 300 retail locations in eleven states. PLS charges its customers a fee to cash checks or purchase money orders. PLS often cashes checks drawn on USAA bank accounts. When it cashes a check, PLS obtains information about the drawer of the check, including their name and signature, account and routing numbers, and encoded information used to verify the legitimacy of the checks.

In October 2012, PLS settled a suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission which alleged that PLS did not properly secure its’ customers’ information. Despite making changes to its processes, problems with unauthorized access to customers’ personal information continued. Nine individuals were later indicted by the government for engaging in a check-cashing scheme that used information from PLS employees to create fraudulent checks. Some of these counterfeit checks were drawn on USAA bank accounts. PLS employees involved in the scheme received a portion of the proceeds from the scheme. Continue reading ›

Orawin Technology v. Healthcare Delivered LLC Grants Summary Judgment in Breach of Contract Case — Chicago Breach of Contract Lawyers

January 28, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A developer of healthcare software was denied damages for breach of contract. The court found that the developer had failed to take advantage of a substitute opportunity when its customer ceased paying on its consulting agreement and transferred its obligations to a successor company. Rather than contracting with the successor company, the owner of the software developer formed an entirely separate company to administer the new consulting arrangement. The court rejected this convenient manuever as a failure to mitigate damages, finding that the new arrangement would have completely offset the developer’s losses.

Orawin is a software technology consulting company, owned and operated by a single person. In 2002, the company developed software for SeniorDent, Inc., a dental management company that focuses on providing dental care to nursing home residents. In 2013, the two companies entered into a Consulting Services Agreement which required Orawin to maintain the software’s dental and vision operating systems and provide modifications determined by SeniorDent. SeniorDent agreed to pay Orawin a monthly retainer upon receipt of invoices.

SeniorDent later attempted to merge with Healthcare Delivered, LLC (“HCD”). HCD and Orawin entered into an amended consulting agreement, transferring all rights and obligations from SeniorDent to HCD. Two months later, the merger of SeniorDent and HCD fell apart, and HCD distributed SeniorDent to a holding company owned by the original owners of SeniorDent (“F&R”). HCD then transferred all of its rights to SeniorDent to the holding company. The owner of Orawin later sought payment for consulting services from HCD, and was told that the F&R was responsible for paying his invoice. The owner of Orawin later formed a new company, O&O, to provide services to the newly reorganized SeniorDent. SeniorDent paid O&O its standard fee beginning in December 2015 and has continued to pay every month since. Continue reading ›

Sunoco v. U.S. Venture, Inc. — Summary Judgment in Patent Infringement on Invalidity Issue

January 27, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A manufacturer of systems that blend butane into gasoline prior to retail sale sued a competitor, accusing it of infringing on its patents. The competitor argued that the patents were invalid because the original inventors had sold their patented system to a third company more than a year before they filed for patents on the system, and because the plaintiff had allegedly engaged in inequitable conduct while prosecuting its patent claim. The Northern District of Illinois rejected the competitor’s arguments, finding that the sale of the system was made for experimental purposes and that the plaintiff’s conduct did not meet the high threshold required to invalidate the patents.

The plaintiff, Sunoco Partners, acquired its patents when it purchased the butane blending business of a company called Texon Terminals in 2010. The competitor, U.S. Venture, Inc. is in the business of mixing butane into gasoline prior to its distribution to retail outlets. In 2012, Venture retained Technics, Inc. to install a butane blending system at three of Venture’s fuel terminals located in Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Sunoco later filed suit against U.S. Venture and Technics in federal court, accusing the companies of infringing on its patents when they installed the butane-blending systems at U.S. Venture’s fuel terminals. Continue reading ›

Recently Settled Lawsuit Over Large Payday Lender’s Use of Non-Compete Agreements Provides Lessons on How to Use Such Agreements — Chicago and Evanston Non-Compete Agreement Attorneys

January 25, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

When non-compete agreements can and cannot be used?

One of outgoing attorney general Lisa Madigan’s final acts was to settle a lawsuit the Attorney General’s office had brought against one of the nation’s largest payday lenders Check Into Cash alleging that the lender’s use of non-compete agreements ran afoul of Illinois law.

Illinois is one of a growing number of states cracking down on the widespread, indiscriminate use of non-compete agreements, particularly with low-skill or low-wage employees. Many employers who use non-compete agreement do not use them for their intended purpose–to protect an employer’s proprietary and valuable information–but instead, use them to prevent employees from leaving and to reduce the available workforce for competitors. It is this practice many states are seeking to curb.

States are also targeting another group of employers: those who attempt to use non-competition agreements for their intended purpose but do so using overly broad, poorly worded agreements. Courts have grown increasingly hostile to such agreements, opting to throw out the entire agreements rather than reign in or rework them (sometimes called blue penciling).

Three things are certain in the area of non-compete agreements (also referred to as restrictive covenants): (1) the agreement must be narrowly tailored so that it protects the employer’s legitimate business interest but does not unnecessarily go beyond that; (2) a poorly worded non-compete agreement is worse than no agreement as it provides a false sense of security but will likely not be enforced by a court (a fact an employer will learn only after lengthy, costly litigation); and (3) a non-compete agreement is not the type of agreement you can set and forget.

Non-compete law, perhaps more than any other area of law, is constantly changing and evolving. A do-it-yourself non-compete agreement or one drafted years ago likely will not hold up in court today. It is wise to have an attorney experienced in non-compete agreement law review and update your non-compete agreement every few years. The money spent now will more than pay off later when you are relying on that agreement to prevent an employee from walking out the door and taking your valuable, proprietary information to a competitor.

What non-compete agreements are and are not.

A non-compete agreement is a contract (or a provision in a contract) between an employer and an employee that prohibits the employee from performing certain activities within a specified geographic area for a set amount of time. The purpose of non-compete agreements is to protect an employer’s proprietary and valuable information. An employer who invests time and money in training an employee and discloses valuable information that the employer has developed at great expense wants protection from that employee leaving and using that information to directly compete with the employer. Examples of the type of information an employer might want to protect include customer lists, vendor lists, pricing lists, methods and procedures, and client renewal dates (for insurance brokers). Employers often use non-compete agreements in conjunction with non-solicitation agreements to further protect them from the impact of losing an employee.

Non-compete agreements are not a mechanism for retaining employees by eliminating all alternative employment opportunities. They also are not a mechanism for preventing competitors from being able to find workers for open positions. If there is evidence that an employer has used non-compete agreements for these prohibited purposes, a court will not enforce the agreement.

The first thing an employer must understand is when a non-compete (or non-solicitation) agreement can and cannot be used. As the Check Into Cash lawsuit demonstrates, non-compete agreements are not appropriate for all employees. The Illinois Freedom to Work Act, 820 ILCS 90/1 et seq., prohibits the use of non-compete agreements for employees whose earnings do not exceed the greater of minimum wage or $13 per hour. Continue reading ›

Oak Forest Properties v. RER Financial, Inc. — Breach of Lease Contract Dispute Resolved — Chicago Real-Estate Litigation Attorneys

January 25, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Where circuit court did not err when it ordered plaintiff and defendant to each pay their own attorneys’ fees in case for breach of a lease agreement because the plaintiff and defendant both won and lost on some of their claims, and neither party prevailed on claims that were significantly complex.

Oak Forest Properties is a landlord that operates a strip mall in Oak Forest, Illinois. RER Financial is a franchisee of a consumer tax preparation business. The two companies entered into a commercial lease agreement. Oak Forest agreed to divide one of its buildings into two spaces, and RER agreed to lease one of those spaces. Oak Forest agreed to take on the construction costs of the division, and RER agreed to bear the costs of any interior construction of the space after the division.

The agreement required Oak Forest to finish construction before RER started any aspects of its interior build-out. The parties, however, ignored that requirement and combined their efforts to divide and build-out space, using the same contractor and a single building permit for all work. Eventually, the parties’ relationship broke down and RER exercised an option to terminate the lease. Continue reading ›

Mitek v. Diedrich — Trade Secret and Non-Disclosure Agreement Claims Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction by Federal District Court — Chicago Non-Compete Agreement Attorneys Near Oak Brook

January 24, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A complaint alleging breach of a non-disclosure agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets was successfully dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the defendant was not alleged to have sold a competing product within the state in which the action was filed.

Brad Diedrich worked from May 2003 through September 2017 for Mitek Corporation, an Illinois manufacturer of audio equipment. Diedrich worked as a Senior Engineering Manager for most of his time at the company. Through his work, Diedrich learned trade secrets and confidential information at Mitek. In 2016, Diedrich signed a non-disclosure agreement. The agreement also contained non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

In April 2017, Diedrich went with Mitek’s President and CEO, John Ivey, to a Hong Kong electronics fair. At the fair, one of Mitek’s business partners, EVR, proposed to sell Mitek a digital signal processing amplifier. Ivey asked the company to send information regarding the proposal to Diedrich, but Diedrich failed to follow up on the proposal. Soon after, EVR agreed to work with a division of MTX to develop the new product. After executing a confidentiality agreement, EVR sent a prototype to MTX, which Diedrich viewed and examined. Continue reading ›

McIntosh v. Walgreens Boots Alliance — Illinois Appellate Court Finds Voluntary Payment Doctrine Does Not Defeat Consumer Fraud Claims

January 24, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed a decision by the Illinois Circuit Court in a class action concerning the Consumer Fraud Act, where a retailer was alleged to have improperly collected taxes on exempt bottled water products. The court found that the voluntary payment doctrine did not apply to a payment that was allegedly obtained through deceptive business practices or acts. The court also found that an intent to deceive could be shown by evidence that the payment of the tax by the consumer was a predictable consequence of the retailer asking the consumer to pay the tax.

In 2008, the City of Chicago began imposing a five-cent tax on the sale of bottled water within city limits. Retailers are required to include the tax in the price of bottled water. The city excludes certain bottled beverages from the tax including certain brands of sparkling and mineral water, and other flavored and carbonated water products.

Destin McIntosh sued Walgreens Boots Alliance in Illinois state court. McIntosh filed a class action alleging that Walgreens violated the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by charging the bottled water tax on sparkling water sales that were supposed to be exempt. Walgreens attempted to dismiss the case, arguing that McIntosh’s claim was barred because the tax was disclosed to McIntosh at the time of purchase and that the tax was remitted to the city. The Illinois circuit court granted the motion, and McIntosh appealed. Continue reading ›

Invado v. Forward Science Distribution — District Court Allows Trade Secrets Theft Case to Proceed — Parties Later Enter Judgment in Favor of Defendant — Top Chicago Copyright Lawyers — Chicago Trade Secret Attorneys

January 24, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A maker of medical devices was denied on its motion to dismiss a complaint alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement and breach of the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged facts showing that the defendant misappropriated confidential information to bring a rival product to market, and that the misappropriation potentially occurred after the DTSA was enacted, even though the initial disclosures occurred several years prior to the statute’s effective date. The Court’s decision did not resolve the case on the merits; it simply found that claims which could withstand a motion to dismiss had been alleged. The matter was later resolved by a Stipulated Judgment entering judgments in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff.

Invado is a pharmaceutical company that developed two oral treatment products, NeutraSal and NeutraCaine. In 2014, Invado held discussions with Forward Science, an Illinois company, about the possibility of Forward Science becoming an independent sales agent for Invado. The two parties later signed a confidentiality agreement, in which Forward Science agreed to use any confidential information Invado provided only for the purpose of exploring a business relationship with Invado. After the agreement was signed, Invado disclosed proprietary information to Forward Science regarding its business models, and its processes for manufacturing, distribution, and pricing. The parties ultimately did not form a business relationship.

A year later, the president of Forward Science made a medical device filing with the Food and Drug Administration for a new oral treatment product. The filling stated that Invado’s products were predicate devices for its new product, SalivaMAX. In 2017, Forward Science announced a new oral pain relief product, SalivaCAINE. Prior to 2015, Forward Science did not manufacture or sell products in the same market as Invado. Continue reading ›

Lubin Austermuehle’s Lawyers Named Super Lawyers and Rising Stars in 2019

January 23, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Super Lawyers named Chicago and Oak Brook business trial attorney Peter Lubin a Super Lawyer in the Categories of Class Action, Business Litigation, and Consumer Rights Litigation. Patrick Austermuehle of the Firm was named a Rising Star again. Peter Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle have consistently won this honor which is only given to 5% of Illinois’ attorneys each year.

Lubin Austermuehle’s Oak Brook and Chicago business trial lawyers have over thirty years experience in litigating complex class action, consumer rights and business and commercial litigation disputes. We handle libel and defamation cases, First Amendment issues and emergency business lawsuits involving injunctions, and TROS, covenant not to compete, franchise, distributor and dealer wrongful termination and trade secret lawsuits and many different kinds of business disputes involving shareholders, partnerships, closely held businesses and employee breaches of fiduciary duty. We also assist businesses and business owners who are victims of fraud.

Lubin Austermuehle’s Wheaton, Naperville, and Aurora litigation attorneys have more than two and half decades of experience helping business clients unravel the complexities of Illinois and out-of-state business laws. Our Chicago business, commercial, class-action, and consumer litigation lawyers represent individuals, family businesses and enterprises of all sizes in a variety of legal disputes, including disputes among partners and shareholders as well as lawsuits between businesses and consumer rights, auto fraud, and wage claim individual and class action cases. In every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and successfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investments and get back to business as usual. From offices in Oak Brook, near Naperville and Glen Ellyn, we serve clients throughout Illinois and the Midwest.