John Moye focuses his practice in the areas of technology and software litigation, trade secrets and restrictive covenants, telecommunications, and complex commercial litigation.
Mr. Moye has represented clients in a number of federal and state court proceedings throughout the United States, including representing a large telecommunications provider in a complex contractual dispute with a number of rural carriers over the provision of so-called “Long Term Evolution” (LTE) technology, representing an iron distributor in an unfair competition case against a number of former employees and a newly formed competitor, and representing an Atlanta-based financial consulting firm in a federal lawsuit involving alleged breaches of restrictive covenants by an employee. Mr. Moye has also represented a Voice Over Internet Protocol telecommunications service provider in various disputes arising out of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).
Throughout his career, Mr. Moye has handled a range of complex commercial disputes—including representing a satellite television provider in an action related to the alleged theft of satellite television signals, representing an industrial adhesive manufacturer in a dispute involving theft of trade secrets, breach of restrictive covenants, and trademark infringement, and representing a Fortune 500 company in a multi-million dollar federal litigation involving a software implementation dispute. Mr. Moye has also represented various companies in federal and arbitration proceedings, including representing a large film company in a complex licensing dispute and representing a Georgia-based software company in a contractual dispute with a number of hospitals in Ohio. In addition, Mr. Moye has litigated a range of appellate matters, including appeals to the Eleventh, Fourth, and Second Circuit Courts of Appeal and appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, and the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Mr. Moye is active in the community, serving on the Board of Directors of the Center for Puppetry Arts, Crossroads Community Ministries of Atlanta, and the Georgetown University Alumni Club of Atlanta. In addition, Mr. Moye has participated in a range of pro bono matters throughout his career—including handling a range of dispossessory cases though the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation, representing a number of detained immigrants from Central America in federal asylum proceedings, and representing an LGBT couple in a North Carolina lawsuit challenging the state’s policy regarding birth certificates for same-sex couples. In 2017, Mr. Moye was named “Pro Bono Counsel of the Year” by Kilpatrick Townsend for his work on various pro bono matters.
For approximately seven years, Mr. Moye served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the UNC School of Law, where he taught an upper level course entitled “Transition to Civil Litigation,” with a substantive emphasis on trade secrets law. Mr. Moye has published a number of articles on trade secrets, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, employment best practices, and cybersecurity.
Before law school, Mr. Moye taught High School English at Xavier High School, the oldest Jesuit high school in New York City, and worked as a reporter for Forbes magazine, where he wrote about technology issues, start-ups, and entrepreneurs.
Mr. Moye was named as a 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 North Carolina “Rising Star” for Business Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine.
Counsel to Tennessee-based consulting firm in federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Obtained dismissal of all seven counts alleged in for failure to state a claim in March 2014.
Obtained summary judgment and a dismissal of all claims brought by a hardware manufacturer against AT&T Corporation. Boykin Anchor Co., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., et al., No. 10-00591 (E.D.N.C. 2010); judgment Sept. 2013.
Represented large global adhesive manufacturer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in a case involving a former employee’s misappropriation of trade secrets and intellectual property. Following two years of discovery, the firm withstood motions for summary judgment on a number of affirmative claims, including trade secret misappropriation, breach of confidentiality agreement, unfair trade practices, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy.
Represented Scenera Research LLC, a software company that conducts research and invents patentable technologies in the field of wireless technologies, in a lawsuit in the North Carolina Business Court. The case centered on a dispute with a former employee-inventor over the ownership of certain patents and the former employee’s demand for “patent bonuses” based on these inventions. In January 2012, Kilpatrick Townsend successfully obtained summary judgment in Scenera’s favor and a dismissal of the former employee’s claims for fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment. In February 2012, following a three-week jury trial, the firm obtained a verdict granting Scenera ownership of all of the patents that had been developed by the former employee.
Lead counsel in federal lawsuit brought by a number of rural telecommunications companies located in the Carolinas against AT&T arising out of the provision of “Long Term Evolution” wireless technology. See FTC Comm’ns et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:12-CV-620 (M.D.N.C. 2012).
Represented Atlanta-based company that provides consulting in connection with SEC disclosures in lawsuit against former employees and officers; case involved theft of trade secrets, breach of restrictive covenants and unfair competition and involved concurrent litigations in the Northern District of Georgia, the District of New Jersey, and an arbitration before the AAA in New York.
The firm served as lead counsel for EyeWonder, Inc. in the Southern District of New York to enforce restrictive covenants when its former head of Western regional sales left to join the Los Angeles office of EyeWonder's arch-competitor, New York-based EyeBlaster, Inc. EyeWonder also initiated an arbitration proceeding in Atlanta. The Southern District of New York granted EyeWonder a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration, preventing the former employee from soliciting EyeWonder's customers. After nearly a year of contentious proceedings, the arbitrator ruled in EyeWonder’s favor, not only enjoining the former employee from breaching the restrictive covenants in his agreement, but also ordering him to pay all of EyeWonder’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the arbitration. Eyewonder, Inc. v. Abraham, Case No. 08-03579 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010).
Insights View All
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law, J.D. (2006) with high honors, Order of the Coif
Georgetown University, B.A. (1998) summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
North Carolina (2006)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2015)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (2007)
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (2007)
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (2007)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2008)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - Stanley F. Birch, Jr. (Jan 2006-Jan 2007)
Crossroads Community Ministries of Atlanta, Board of Directors, Member
Atlanta Center for Puppetry Arts, Board of Directors, Member
Georgetown University Alumni Association, Georgia Chapter, Board of Directors, Member
UNC School of Law, Judicial Clerkship Committee, Member (2014-Present)
Leadership North Carolina Class XXII (2014-2015), Graduate
North Carolina Bar, Bar Candidate Interview Committee, Member
North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, North Carolina Guardian Ad Litem Program, Attorney Advocate
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.