|
L-3 Communications
Corp. v. Reveal Imaging Technologies, Inc., 18 Mass.
L. Rep. 512, 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 519
(December 2, 2004) (Van
Gestel, J.). |
|
In a complex non compete and trade secret
dispute between manufacturers of airport baggage
screening equipment, the Court recognized “a pubic
interest component of vastly greater significance than
any yet seen by this Court.” Plaintiff L-3 sought
injunctive relief to prevent certain former employees,
who were inventors of the Company’s explosive detection
system (“EDS”), from working for Reveal – a competitor.
The Court took note of the Congressional
hearings held in the wake of the September 11, 2001
attack, in which Congress emphasized the importance of
airport baggage screening to “combat[] the terrorist
threat against aviation.” The court denied the
injunctive relief sought and stated:
“It would be difficult to conceive of a
greater public interest than that presented |
|
by the underlying situation here. Thus,
this Court must not – regardless of the economic
consequences to the litigating parties – issue any order
that disturbs or is harmful to the public interest.”
The L-3 Communications decision is
also interesting for its close analysis of a complicated
web of non compete agreements, executed by the
individual employees while working for previously
acquired companies. Business Session litigants might
also take footnote 3 to heart, in which the Court
expressed its displeasure with the parties, who
submitted more than four bankers’ boxes of documents in
connection with the motions, consumed over six hours of
oral argument time, and had already generated 204 docket
entries in one year of litigation.
 |
