Cozen O’Conner

Firm overview:

Cozen O'Connor’s Trade Secrets, Restrictive Covenants, and Computer Abuse team combines attorneys from labour and employment, intellectual property, and commercial litigation practices.

Collectively, these attorneys have implemented and litigated nationwide restrictive covenants, invention assignment agreements, and confidentiality agreements. Cozen has  handled hundreds of injunction proceedings relating to theft of trade secrets, theft of computer data, restrictive covenants, and breach of employee loyalty in almost every state and court in the US.

The firm has extensive first-chair jury-trial experience in significant US multi-jurisdictional cases. It has successfully obtained and defeated emergency injunctions, won multimillion-dollar verdicts on behalf of plaintiffs, achieved complete exoneration for defendants and received fee awards for plaintiffs and defendants.

Team overview:

There are 34 partners and five other lawyers across 14 offices who are active in trade secrets at Cozen. The firm’s attorneys take a collaborative approach to trade secrets cases, employing lawyers from varying disciplines and offices to create matter specific teams.

James (Jim) Gale is co-chair of Trade Secrets, Restrictive Covenants, and Computer Abuse; and co-chair of Intellectual Property Litigation. He has handled hundreds of patents, theft of trade secrets, restrictive covenants, trademarks, unfair competition, and internet disputes.

Gale is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Trade Secret Committee, and is co-chair of the Trade Secrets Litigation Subcommittee for the American Bar Association Commercial and Business Litigation Section.

The inaugural chair of the IP Board Certification Committee, Gale is ranked as a Recommended individual in these rankings.

Key matters:

• Mersive Technologies v Jaynes, US District Court, District of Colorado, Case No. 1:23-cv-01262

Cozen O'Connor represented Mersive Technologies, a computer software developer, in a theft of trade secrets case against its former chief technology officer, Christopher Jaynes, and his new employer, QSC.

Mersive alleged that Jaynes downloaded hundreds of confidential and proprietary files from Mersive before his departure, and lied about his future job ventures. Mersive also claimed that Jaynes went to work for audio technology company QSC, a partner of Mersive’s, to create a competing product.

Mersive said Jaynes also encouraged at least three other Mersive employees to work for QSC. QSC had entered negotiations to buy Mersive, then withdrew its bid and hired Jaynes.

A Cozen team of James Gale; Barry Golob, co-chair of Intellectual Property Litigation; Samuel Lewis, co-chair of Copyright Practice; and members David Stahl and Jonathan Gale, investigated the matter. Cozen filed a complaint and the defendants offered to settle immediately.

QSC, d/b/a Q-Sys, was represented by Evan Rothstein and Patrick Hall of Arnold & Porter. Leah VanLandschoot of The Litigation Boutique represented Christopher Jaynes.

• AFINITI, et al v CHISHTI et al, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:2023cv003
  Cozen O’Connor defended Zia Chishti, his wife, Sarah Pobereskin, and other companies of misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) claims predicated on misappropriation of trade secrets asserted by the CEO’s former companies.

This bet-the-company case, filed in February 2023, is pending as the parties await a ruling on a fully briefed dispositive motion.

The Cozen team is Samuel Lewis; Barry Boss, co-chair of Commercial Litigation Department and co-chair of White Collar Defense & Investigations Practice; and members Micah Myers and Robert Dell’Osa.

Afiniti, Ltd. and Afiniti, Inc. are represented by Thomas Counts, Igor Timofeyev, Jeffrey Pade, Brian Wilmot, David Valente, Richard Rothman, Elizabeth Brann, and Ariell Bratton of Paul Hastings.

• Cozen O’Connor represented George Cardoza concerning a non-compete agreement with his former employer, a Florida-based publicly traded company owning nationwide cancer testing laboratories.
  
  Cardoza left the company to become the CEO of a California-based startup company planning to manufacture tests used by companies like his former employer and its competitors. Cardoza’s former employer attempted to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement. In response, Cozen filed suit against the former employer in California, seeking a declaration that the restrictive covenants in his employment agreement were invalid.

The former employer filed an arbitration in Florida triggering a clause in Cardoza’s employment contract. A Cozen team of James Gale and Jonathan Gale defended the motion on the basis that the arbitration provision was unconscionable, and received a tentative favourable ruling. Cozen used the tentative ruling to leverage a favourable settlement for the client in February 2023.

Law firm Cooley served as co-counsel to the former employer.

Clients:

Mersive Technologies, George Cardoza & AccuraGen, ChenMed, Chen Yan and Lolo Surgical, Zia Chishti; Sarah Pobereskin; Qinhe (Hainan) Intelligent Technology, Isbei Ltd, Isbei (Hainan) Technology Co, Isbei AI, OTG Management, DB Home Designs d/b/a EKB Kitchens, Andrea Jean Mowrey, Apotex, Endo Pharmaceuticals