ILNews

Brightpoint suing former exec in trade secret dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Brightpoint Inc. is suing a former top executive for allegedly taking company trade secrets to a new job with a direct competitor.

The Indianapolis-based wireless distributor filed suit in Marion Superior Court on Monday against Mitch Black, who left Brightpoint last year and took a similar position with Brightstar Corp. in Miami earlier this month.

Brightpoint accuses Black of breaching both his employment contract and the state’s trade secrets act, in addition to committing fraud.

“Black will be performing services for Brightstar that are extremely similar — if not identical — to the services he performed for Brightpoint,” the company said in its complaint. “Moreover, at Brightstar, Black will be working with, and soliciting business from, many of the very same clients and suppliers that he was paid to develop relationships [with] on behalf of Brightpoint.”

In his 12 years at Brightpoint, Black rose through the managerial ranks to become senior vice president, a position that gave him responsibility for the company’s entire North American distribution division, according to the lawsuit.

Black also had daily access to Brightpoint’s confidential and proprietary business information and trade secrets, and he was integrally involved in the company’s strategic planning, Brightpoint charged.

Black resigned from Brightpoint in November 2010 to accept a job as president of sales and purchasing for New Jersey-based PCS Wireless Inc., a company that Brightpoint did not consider to be a direct competitor, the complaint said.

Less than a year later, Black and Brightpoint began discussing his return to the Indianapolis company. Ultimately, Black refused the offer and joined Brightstar instead.

Brightpoint alleges in its suit that its negotiations with Black will cause severe harm to the company.

“During the course of these discussions and trading on the trust, friendship and goodwill that he had built with Brightpoint over a 12-year period, Black cajoled additional trade secret and confidential information about Brightpoint’s business and strategic plans from unwitting Brightpoint executives,” the complaint said.

Brightpoint further alleges that Black admitted taking confidential information from Brightpoint, including the operating plan for an entire Brightpoint division, detailed spreadsheets containing sensitive financial and accounting data, and customer lists.

Brightpoint is asking the court to forbid Black from providing services for Brightstar that violate his employment agreements, and to prohibit Brightstar from using Brightpoint’s trade secrets to “unfairly” compete against the company.

Brightpoint also is seeking an undetermined amount in damages.

This story originally ran on IBJ.com Dec. 21, 2011.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT