Rip Andrews, Derrick Mills, David and Jane Mauzy settled an intellectual property case for an Alabama-based small business against a national corporation recognized as one of the world’s largest makers and suppliers of professional audio equipment.

The Alabama business came up with a unique design for a wakeboard tower speaker. The allegation was that the national corporation wrongfully used the design in violation of a confidentiality agreement entered into between the parties. Once its trade secret was misappropriated, the Alabama business found it impossible to exercise its ownership rights and locate a new manufacturer capable of bringing the product to market. As a result, the Alabama business was forced to file a lawsuit in order to recover the value of the trade secret and right this wrong.

Trade Secrets – Confidential Settlement In Jefferson County, Alabama

When a big player in the medical device industry stole technology invented and developed by a Birmingham electrical engineer, Marsh, Rickard & Bryan, became his fiercest advocate. The engineer and his start-up company thought they were being courted for acquisition; they were really being pumped for secret information about the invention that solved a decades-old safety issue for surgeons in the operating room. The truth emerged only later: The national company used that information to build its own product and never planned to buy the start-up or pay for the use of that secret information. After that happened, the Birmingham engineer found it impossible to sell the technology to another company or to get financing necessary to full commercialize it. David Marsh and Rip Andrews handled the case.

^{These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.}