Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Under Armour lawsuit against former innovation chief dismissed

(File)

(File)

Under Armour’s lawsuit against a former employee alleging violations of a non-competition clause was dismissed last week at the request of the parties.

Under Armour was granted a temporary restraining order Dec. 14 which prohibited Jason Berns, former head of innovation, from working at Club Monaco, a subsidiary of Ralph Lauren, according to court records. The order expired after 10 days and the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal Jan. 4.

Joseph D. Wilson, of Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP in Washington, D.C., Berns’ lawyer, said he could confirm that the case was dismissed but could not comment on the reason.

Under Armour filed suit in September and sought injunctive relief after Berns resigned and said he had accepted a position as senior vice president of innovation at Ralph Lauren.

Berns had to execute annually with Under Armour a confidentiality, non-competition and non-solicitation agreement, which prohibited him from working for a competitor for the year after leaving Under Armour, , according to the complaint. Berns also agreed not to share proprietary information and trade secrets learned at Under Armour.

In return, Under Armour agreed to pay Berns 60 percent of his salary during the one-year period.

Under Armour claimed Ralph Lauren was a competitor and, due to his position, Berns “had access to a substantial amount of Under Armour’s confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets.”

In a second amended complaint and request for temporary restraining order, Under Armour alleged Berns reported he was taking a senior position with the Club Monaco brand instead of Ralph Lauren. Under Armour alleged Berns was still working for a competitor brand as defined by his contract.

In granting the motion for a temporary restraining order, Baltimore City Circuit Judge Audrey J.S. Carrion found Club Monaco to be a competing business and that, without the order, Under Armour would suffer a loss of competitive advantage and public disclosure of confidential information.

Under Armour is represented by Kramon & Graham P.A. in Baltimore. Lawyers there did not respond to a request for comment Thurdsay.

The case is Under Armour Inc. v. Jason Berns, 24C15004960.