A key argument in a trade secrets suit pertaining to the validity of a preliminary injunction has been denied, setting the stage for contempt hearings against two lawyers involved. Both sides have been butting heads over the use of a voicemail message recording ever since the California Supreme Court decided to review the case. At issue is what effect the high court's decision has on an earlier trial court's preliminary injunction against using the tape -- even though an appeal court later overruled it.
January 10, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A key argument in a trade secrets lawsuit pertaining to the validity of a preliminary injunction has been denied, setting the stage for contempt hearings against two lawyers involved.
Attorneys on both sides of Jasmine Networks v. Marvell Semiconductor have been butting heads over the use of a voicemail message recording ever since the California Supreme Court decided to review the case in 2004.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
