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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT