Joel Bush concentrates his practice in the area of complex commercial litigation, with particular emphasis on information technology and software disputes, misappropriation of trade secrets, business torts, restrictive covenant, and technology license disputes. Mr. Bush has litigated disputes arising out of computer hardware installations, software implementations, network design projects, and other technology implementations.
Mr. Bush regularly represents software and technology companies in claims based on fraud, breach of contract, and negligence arising out of implementation problems, network design issues, software performance, and system compatibility problems. He has represented employers and employees in disputes arising out of restrictive covenant agreements. Mr. Bush routinely litigates trade secret disputes and he has particular experience in trade secret claims arising out of software development. Mr. Bush also represents commercial parties in contract, indemnity, and related claims. He has appeared in federal and state courts and is also experienced in arbitration.
Mr. Bush joined the firm in 1993. Before attending law school, he worked on Capitol Hill as the Legislative Director for a member of Congress. Mr. Bush has been recognized as a Georgia "Super Lawyer" in General Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine. He was recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® in 2017 and 2018 for Technology Law. Mr. Bush was recommended by Legal 500 US in 2015, 2016 and 2017 for Trade Secrets Litigation. He was named to Georgia Trend's "Legal Elite" in 2013 for General Practice and is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure's standards and policies.
Represented HMV Group, an entertainment retailer, in a dispute arising out of a software license agreement in the e-commerce area. After an arbitration proceeding the matter settled favorably.
Serves as outside counsel for Manhattan Associates Inc., a supply chain management and logistics software company, in connection with implementation disputes, license disputes and breach of non-compete agreements.
Represented Manhattan Associates who hired an employee who had previously worked for competitor. The employee did not have a non-compete obligation in favor of former employer. After our client hired the employee, the competitor filed suit in Minneapolis alleging "inevitable disclosure" and seeking a TRO to enjoin its former employee from working for our client. We successfully defeated the motion for TRO. In March 2006, we defeated temporary restraining order sought by plaintiff (to enjoin defendant's employment with Manhattan Associates).
Represented Tory Burch LLC, an apparel and accessories retail company, in connection with a pre-litigation dispute involving claims between our client and its former e-commerce technology platform provider.
Assisted Manhattan Associates Inc., a supply chain management and logistics software company, with the defense of claims filed arising from a software implementation. We settled this case favorably for our client far below the plaintiff's original claim.
Represented Siemens Automation & Energy, a software company providing electrical, engineering and automation solutions in the energy, industrial manufacturing and construction industries, related to software license and marketing dispute.
Represented large e-commerce software company in case involving implementation of multiple software programs. Claims alleged included fraud, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and state statutory claims.
Served as litigation counsel for B&L Tech Company Inc. (B&L), formerly known as StatSignal Systems Inc. (SSI), a mesh wireless networking systems and applications company, in connection with the defense of an alleged breach of "right of first offer" obligation purportedly contained in a series of complex patent licensing agreements. In 2004, SSI’s inventor formed a separate patent licensing company, SIPCO LLC (SIPCO), and then asserted patent infringement claims against an affiliate of Landis + Gyr, Inc. (L+G). In 2006, SSI sold all of its assets, including its patent assets, to Hunt Technologies LLC (Hunt), an affiliate of L+G, in a transaction valued at $30 million. SIPCO then sued B&L for breach of an alleged "right of first offer" and pressed the Court to "unwind" B&L's 2006 asset transfer to Hunt. In 2007, the court denied SIPCO’s motion for injunctive relief against B&L and Hunt. A substantial damage claim was also asserted against B&L on the contract claims. B&L filed six separate motions for summary judgments. In September 2009, the court issued an order that granted five of B&L’s six motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ right of first offer claim against B&L and plaintiffs’ extraordinarily high damage claim against B&L were fully dismissed from the case. IPCO, LLC, et al., v. Cellnet Technology, Inc., et al., 660 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (N.D. Ga. 2009).
Represented Compuware Corporation, a storage and systems management software company, in litigation related to software licensing and implementation project.
The firm served as lead counsel for a Georgia-based software developer in a factually complex theft of trade secrets case involving the copying and misappropriation of source code files relating to the e-mail attachment viewing technology used in handheld devices. Suit was filed on behalf of software developer in October 2003, alleging claims against competitors, and former executives of competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was defeated, and developer successfully moved to compel production of defendants’ source code pertaining to the technology in question, and defeated defendants' omnibus motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. The case settled for a confidential amount shortly before a three-week trial was scheduled to begin.
Insights View All
University of Virginia School of Law, J.D. (1993)
Emory University, B.A., English and Political Science (1986) summa cum laude
District of Columbia (1995)
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.