Aspect Software, Inc. v. Barnett

787 F. Supp. 2d 118 (2011)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Aspect Software, Inc. v. Barnett

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
787 F. Supp. 2d 118 (2011)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

In 2005, Gary Barnett (defendant) became an executive vice president of Aspect Software, Inc. (Aspect) (plaintiff) and was responsible for managing all aspects of the customer-contact-center business, including product development, customer relations, employee recruitment, and general strategic matters. Aspect developed and sold software products and services that allowed the company’s business clients to provide customer service, sales, telemarketing, and other functions directly to customers through contact centers. Aspect maintained numerous trade secrets, including those related to its technologies, proprietary products, timelines for product development, marketing and business strategies, research and development budget and resources, interactions with Microsoft, and negotiations with customers. Barnett signed an employment agreement that contained a noncompetition agreement (NCA). The NCA provision required Barnett to acknowledge the company’s trade secrets and, for one year following termination of employment, restricted Barnett from participating in any business in which he would be “reasonably likely to employ, reveal, or otherwise utilize” the company’s trade secrets. In April 2011, Barnett was offered and accepted employment with Avaya, a global telecommunications company that was one of Aspect’s main competitors. Barnett agreed to be the general manager of Avaya’s contact-center business unit, performing the same kind of work he had done at Aspect. Avaya was aware of Barnett’s NCA and took certain steps for Barnett to avoid sharing Aspect’s trade secrets. For example, Barnett’s boss wrote Barnett an email directing him to “not disclose” any part of Aspect’s business to anyone at Avaya. Aspect sued Barnett, claiming breach of the NCA. Aspect moved for a preliminary injunction to enforce the NCA and stop Barnett from working for Avaya. Barnett primarily argued that the NCA’s prohibition on working in a business where he would be “reasonably likely” to use Aspect’s trade secrets was vague and ambiguous.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Casper, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership