Xerox Suing Former Employees at Rival IT-Management Firm
March 24, 2015 – Law360 reports that on March 23rd, Xerox filed a lawsuit against three former senior executives in Connecticut federal court, alleging that the former employees conspired to misappropriate Xerox’s allegedly confidential technology information, trade secrets, and intellectual property for their rival customer-service technology startup, TopBox Solutions. TopBox Solutions, which is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, provides onsite IT support, cloud services, managed IT services, mobile-device management, back-up solutions, and Apple-product integration.
The complaint says that the defendants, while working for Xerox, sought funding for their new venture and approached at least one potential customer who allegedly did millions of dollars in annual business with Xerox. Xerox also accuses them of breaching their contracts and “employee duties of loyalty,” and soliciting other Xerox employees to work for TopBox.
Along with TopBox, Xerox is suing Christopher L. Tranquill, the former head of Xerox’s customer-care services business unit, Jeffrey S. Yentis, and Brian K. Timmons, managing director and senior vice president, respectively, who worked under Tranquill. The suit claims that, for at least 11 months before Tranquill resigned in October, the employees collaborated on the recently launched TopBox firm, which allegedly uses the same customer-service analytics technology that they supervised while at Xerox.
The Xerox complaint alleges that as a result of their high-level access at Xerox, the defendants identified and implemented methodologies that could help them gain a “competitive marketplace advantage.”
According to the complaint, in November 2013, Tranquill allegedly asked Yentis and Timmons to join him in launching a Xerox competitor.
The suit also alleges unfair competition, and Xerox is seeking an injunction that would block TopBox from all sales-related activity involving customers whom they worked with while at Xerox, and using Xerox’s product or design information. The suit also requests unspecified damages.