Where a plaintiff has alleged that the defendant, a former employee, violated her non-competition and non-disclosure agreements by going to work for a direct competitor after downloading and taking copies of proprietary, confidential and highly sensitive technical information, the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction despite the defendant’s argument that the agreements are unenforceable under the Massachusetts Non-Competition Act (G.L.c. 149, §24L), but a G.L.c. 93A count must be dismissed because the plaintiff has alleged no facts plausibly suggesting that it suffered any kind of loss or that the defendant has made any profit by using the plaintiff’s proprietary information.
“Vicarious Surgical Inc. has designed, and is seeking federal regulatory approval for, a small surgical robotic system to be used in human abdominal surgery. Beth Tragakis worked for Vicarious for three-and-a-half years. Vicarious claims that Tragakis violated her non-competition and non-disclosure agreements by going to work for a direct competitor after downloading and taking copies of proprietary, confidential, and highly sensitive technical information. Vicarious sued Tragakis for breach of contract, conversion of property, violating the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act (G.L.c. 93, §§42-42G) and committing unfair trade practices that violate the business-to-business section of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (G.L.c. 93A,...
Musk’s AI empire just took Apple off the legal hit list, but OpenAI is still in the crosshairs. Elon Musk’s X Corp. and SpaceXAI have moved to dismiss their antitrust claims against Apple, ending ...