A recent opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has stirred up a hornets’ nest of commentary because it appears to recognize the viability of the inevitable disclosure doctrine under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).  Those familiar with the DTSA will recall that the inevitable disclosure doctrine was supposed to be prohibited under the DTSA because of California Senator Diane Feinstein’s concern that the doctrine might be enforced against California residents.  Now, in what appears to be the first federal appellate court opinion construing the DTSA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may have further muddied the waters about the inevitable disclosure doctrine in Fres-co Systems USA, Inc. v. Hawkins, Case No. 16-3591, ___ Fed. Appx. __ (3rd Cir. 2017), 2017 WL 2376568 (June 1, 2017) (a link to the opinion can found here). Continue Reading Fres-co Systems v. Hawkins: Did The Third Circuit Just Create More Confusion Around The DTSA’s Ban On The Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine?

One of the Defend Trade Secrets Act’s (DTSA) most noteworthy features is its provision forbidding injunctions that would prevent a former employee from entering into another employment agreement.  As explained below, this provision,18 U.S.C. §1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(I), was included to preserve employee mobility and assuage concerns that covenants not to compete, as well as what is known as the “inevitable disclosure” doctrine, might be enforced by federal courts in states that have rejected their enforceability.  Today’s post looks at the legislative history of that provision and how courts have interpreted it. Continue Reading The Defend Trade Secrets Act After One Year: Injunctions Affecting New Employment

Yesterday, Uber released a letter that it had sent to Anthony Levandowski notifying him of its intention to terminate him as an employee because of his failure to cooperate with an Order issued on May 11, 2017 by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup.   While most of the media coverage of the case had previously focused on the portion of the Order effectively quarantining Levandowski from Uber’s development of its LiDAR technology, perhaps the most noteworthy portions of the Order proved to be Judge Alsup’s directives to Uber to get to the bottom of what Waymo trade secrets Levandowski might have shared with others at Uber.  (A link to Judge Alsup’s Order can be found here).  As I explain below, those two paragraphs of Judge Alsup’s Order inevitably set Uber against Levandowski and led to his termination.
Continue Reading Why Uber’s Firing of Anthony Levandowski Became Inevitable

waymo_largeThere have been two significant developments in the Waymo lawsuit against Uber, which is unquestionably the highest profile trade secrets case of the year.  In the first ruling, U.S. District Court William Alsup referred the record of the case to the U.S. Attorney’s office for investigation of possible theft of trade secrets.  In the second, Judge Alsup released a copy of his opinion yesterday explaining the injunction that he entered against Uber last week.  Significantly, Judge Alsup declined Waymo’s primary request to shut down Uber’s driverless car business.

Instead, he ordered that Uber continue to quarantine former Waymo engineer Anthony Levandowski from its development of Uber’s Lidar technology, the technology that was the subject of the trade secrets he was alleged to have stolen.  Judge Alsup declined to shutdown of Uber’s driverless program because Waymo could not establish that Uber had used the trade secrets that Levandowski allegedly took with him.

Referring the record for a pending civil case to the local federal prosecutor is highly unusual (in fact, I can’t remember it being done) and appears to be directed at Levandowski and his other former Waymo colleagues who joined him at Uber.  However, the injunction looks like a victory for Uber, at least at this early stage in the proceeding. Continue Reading Waymo v. Uber: What Judge Alsup’s Injunction and Criminal Referral Mean for Uber

AT_YOUR_OWN_RISKWhen moving to enforce a non-compete, the last thing a litigator wants to do is to stumble out of the gates and struggle over a profound legal issue that could delay consideration of that normally urgent request.   A new and little-talked-about section of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), however, has the potential to trip up employers seeking to enforce non-competes if they are not prepared to address this new entanglement.

There has been a significant amount of commentary about the DTSA and its new amendments since President Obama signed the DTSA into law on May 11, 2016. The “whistle-blower” immunity and ex parte seizure order, for example, have generated the most discussion to this point.  However, the section of the DTSA that may have the greatest future impact on litigation under the DTSA is 18 U.S.C. §1839(3)(A)(i)(1)(I), which prohibits injunctions that “prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship.”

That new provision, which I will refer to as the “No-Ban-on-Employment” provision, was intended to curb, if not eliminate, the use of the inevitable disclosure doctrine under the DTSA.  However, it may have a significant unintended consequence–namely, it may complicate employers’ efforts to enforce non-competes through temporary restraining orders (TRO), the key legal mechanism for non-compete disputes.  For the reasons below, employers may want to reconsider invoking the DTSA when they want to enforce their non-competes because of the potential complications of this section’s language and instead opt to file them in state court, at least in the short-term.  As the DTSA is likely to overtake the Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA) as the dominant statutory regime for trade secret law, this DTSA provision may well set another blow in motion to the viability of the non-compete as an effective tool to protect trade secrets.

Continue Reading Does the Defend Trade Secrets Act Contain a Potential Roadblock for Non-Competes? Why the DTSA’s Limitations on the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine May Complicate Enforcing Non-Competes

I wanted to continue my wrap up of some of the other high points from the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Trade Secrets Summit on Tuesday but there was so much fine content that I could not do it justice in a single post.  Consequently, I will follow up with a final post on the Summit as well as high points from the cybersecurity and trade secret presentations from the AIPLA Annual Meeting last week.  Here are some additional highlights:

In the litigation and procedure session, Russell Beck of Beck Reed Riden, Kenneth Vanko of Clingen Callow and Anthony Sammi of Skadden Arps covered the important issues to consider when bringing a TRO or injunction in a trade secrets case.

Decline of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine?  Russell noted the realities of the increasingly high standard for injunctions in state and federal courts. He also started an interesting conversation within the panel about the inevitable disclosure doctrine (a doctrine that holds that even the most conscientious employee may not be able to avoid using a former employer’s trade secrets if he/she joins a competitor). Russell noted that the recent case in Washington involving Amazon.com and Google — which rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine — is consistent with what he is seeing by courts. In short, if the employee is clean when he/she leaves, it is simply very difficult to restrain him or her from working for a competitor in the absence of a non-compete.

The Increasing Importance of Trade Secret Identification.  Kenneth Vanko outlined the trend of recent cases requiring plaintiffs to identify their trade secrets early in a case. This was a key theme at the Summit and at the AIPLA Annual Meeting as it seemed each speaker observed greater emphasis from courts requiring plaintiffs to identify their trade secrets at key junctures.  Ken emphasized the importance of specificity and doing your best to focus on pursuing the best trade secrets at issue throughout the proceeding.  Ken noted that other jurisdictions are following the lead of California, Delaware and Minnesota in requiring some degree of disclosure early in a proceeding. For those asserting trade secrets that involve some compilation of publicly known information, Ken noted that courts have imposed a higher burden on those types of trade secrets — requiring plaintiffs not only to identify those trade secrets but to explain how those compilations qualify as a trade secret.

The Importance of Selecting Your Best Witness Early.  Tony Sammi’s presentation focused on the special challenges of trade secrets in highly technical cases. Tony emphasized the importance of identifying the witness who could best explain the technology and trade secrets to a judge or jury. Tony noted that the most knowledgeable witnesses in his cases are generally not the managers but instead the coders themselves.

Negative Use.  The panel emphasized the importance of “negative use” in trade secrets cases — the concept that a defendant doesn’t have to necessarily use or incorporate a trade secret into its product to receive a benefit from that trade secret. They agreed that this concept can be a tricky one and often does not get the attention it deserves despite the fact that a defendant can benefit from avoiding the blind alleys and goose chases of the development process by finding out what hasn’t worked.

In the afternoon, the Summit focused on the criminal trade secrets front. Gabriel Ramsey of Orrick, Eduardo Roy, and Michael Weil of Orrick provided plenty of war stories in their panel discussion about their experiences in advising clients who bring, or are on the receiving end of, a criminal trade secrets prosecution.

Know Your Federal District. The panel agreed that knowing the dynamics of your local federal prosecutors and investigators’ office was key to securing a criminal referral. They noted that you will likely have to package your trade secret claim to the duty agent for the FBI or other contact. The panel observed that these agents and officials are no different from those in the private sector and they are most interested in cases that will bring attention and favorable press to them and their offices.  Also, the panel emphasized that you may find that your best contact is not necessarily a prosecutor but a secret service agent or FBI agent.  Every district is different and relationships matter.

Factors that may make a trade secret case more sexy for a criminal referral include the potential for a powerful press release, high dollar numbers, travel opportunities for the officer, the existence of a foreign national in the alleged theft, or the potential for a civil case that might bring big fines. The panel acknowledged that only the most egregious cases between domestic competitors will get a prosecutor or agent’s attention.  They noted that there is frequently a bias against trade secrets cases because of the existence of a civil remedy.

The panel also emphasized the importance of the absence of skeletons in the client’s closet and that the client should be clean. Otherwise, the client might find itself in a situation where the prosecutor turns the tables and prosecutes the client, as these cases frequently involve former employee who can be expected to throw dirt right back at their prior employer (accusing them of securities violations, whistleblower, etc.).

Miscellaneous Points.  The panel agreed that in concurrent civil and criminal investigations, that while the government can’t use a civil case as a stalking horse for its criminal case and for discovery, there is nothing wrong with a civil defendant bringing evidence to prosecutors.  The risk of course is that whatever is given to the prosecutor will have to be shared with the defendants’ legal team.  Another interesting issue that the panel raised involved the company’s obligations to a former employee charged with stealing from that company – namely, is there insurance coverage?  As readers of this blog know, this question is now front and center in Sergey Aleynikov’s long-running dispute with Goldman Sachs and is the subject of a pending declaratory relief action in New Jersey.  The panel could offer no clear answers on this question but advised that companies need to be aware of their potential coverage.

One point of discussion was how best to defuse criminal proceeding when representing the company.  Eduardo noted that it may be in the company’s interest to clean house and fire everybody that was involved to mitigate the company’s damages and exposure.  The panel emphasized the importance of having a full legal team given the range of important legal issues – i.e., counsel skilled in internal investigations, labor and employment counsel for possible terminations.

Again, I will wrap up next with a discussion of the final session of the Summit that covered prosecuting trade secret claims before the International Trade Commission as well as the trade secrets and cybersecurity presentations at the AIPLA’s Annual Meeting.

Reports of the Trade Secret Litigator’s death have been greatly exaggerated and in fact, I was spotted on Tuesday at the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s Trade Secrets Summit in Washington, D.C. For those unable to attend, I thought a quick wrap up of the high points of the day’s excellent content would be helpful.

Seyfarth’s Robert Milligan, David Rikker of Raytheon, Mark Mermelstein of Orrick and Christian Scali of The Scali Firm started out the day addressing the dynamics of trade secret litigation, focusing on the key points in successfully managing the in-house/outside counsel relationship.  The panel covered an awful lot of ground, but the high points included:

Cease and Desist Letters:  The consensus seemed to be that they may be more trouble than they are worth.  Each of the outside counsel panelists emphasized the importance of accuracy and timing, as there is always the risk that a client’s investigation may not be complete at the time of drafting the letter. However, the letters can achieve their initial desired effect as David Rikker says Raytheon takes them seriously.

Ex parte TROs: No surprise here, the panel agreed that they are rarely granted except for preservation orders where there are egregious facts giving rise to concerns over spoliation or destruction of evidence.

Special Dangers of Motions to Seal:  Protective orders are no longer perfunctory and the panel reported that they are increasingly seeing defendants oppose motions to place trade secrets under seal as defendants use the protective order as an opportunity to lay out their objections to the bona fides of those trade secrets. Robert Milligan said they have almost become the equivalent of summary judgment disputes in California.  Of course, the consequences of denial of a motion can be catastrophic so the panel emphasized the importance of making your record for an appeal to preserve your trade secrets.

Criminal Referral:  Mark Mermelstein spoke about the advantages of initiating a criminal investigation as opposed to a civil claim. Those pros include the fact that the government can, among other things, use false identities to gather evidence from the potential defendant (civil lawyers are prohibited by the ethical rules from using those means), issue a 2703 order to secure the identities for an ISP address associated with misappropriation or cybertheft, and ultimately issue a search warrant if necessary.  Mark also noted that the federal government also can rely on multi-lateral treaties to enlist the help of foreign law enforcement. Finally, Mark observed that a criminal proceeding can be the most effective way of collecting ill-gotten gains as the leverage of jail time may persuade potential defendants to repatriate those moneys.

Mark did identify several reasons why a company may not want to pursue a criminal option. The law of unintended consequences may reign, particularly as the client will ultimately lose control of any criminal investigation to the prosecutors or federal authorities. Fall out could also include damage to customer relationships, since some of those customers could be ensnared as witnesses or even targets. Finally, for publicly-held companies, depending on the scope of the breach and the resulting publicity, a public investigation and prosecution could affect share price or lead to shareholder litigation.

Best Practices for Keeping In-House Counsel Happy: David Rikker listed the following best practices for a healthy counsel relationship: clear and timely communication, helping in-house counsel get the business unit’s buy-in for any investigation or litigation, thorough early case assessment to help manage expectations, and, not surprisingly, no surprises!  David emphasized the importance of an early case assessment that includes looking at the pros and cons of a prosecution or litigation. He acknowledged that in-house counsel appreciate that outside lawyers cannot anticipate every eventuality but a frank conversation of uncertainty is important, particularly for the business unit personnel.

On-Boarding: The issue of on-boarding is growing in importance as more companies are hiring people with restrictive covenants or trying to mitigate their risk from trade secret fall out. Robert put together a highly entertaining video of what companies should not do (that video, along with one addressing best practices for on-boarding is available on Youtube and I will provide a link in a future post).  All of the outside lawyers emphasized the importance of getting the prospective employee’s written employment agreements as part of the hiring process.  From the in-house perspective, David Rikker emphasized the need for a culture of ethics and responsibility — that a company has to make clear that it is not soliciting its competitors’ trade secrets when it hires new employees, and that after hiring, new employees need to understand that they have to keep those trade secrets out of the new employer’s environment.

Off-Boarding:  As time was winding down, the panel did not have the opportunity to comprehensively address best practices in the departing employee context.  David noted the need for clear rules on, among other things, thumb drive use, third party storage and use of DropBox.  Above all, he emphasized the importance of a culture of responsibility.

I will follow up with another post summarizing the rest of the day’s discussions. The content and speakers were generally superb and a special shout out is warranted to Peter Torren of Weisbrod Matteis & Copley, Seth Hudson of Clements Bernard, Orrick’s Warrington Parker and Intel’s Janet Craycroft for their efforts in putting this together for the AIPLA’s Trade Secret Law Committee.

05022013Here are the noteworthy trade secret, non-compete and cybersecurity stories from the past week, as well as one or two that I missed over the past couple of weeks:

Trade Secret and Non-Compete Posts and Articles:

  • “Can Business Relationships Be Trade Secrets? VA Federal Court Says No” advises Eric Ostroff in his Protecting Trade Secrets Blog. In Cablecom Tax Services v. Shenandoah Telecomms. Co., U.S. District Court Judge Michael Urbanski dismissed a tax consultant’s trade secrets claim against its telecommunications customers, reasoning that the consultant’s alleged relationships with tax authorities, a  tax-law “accounting system,” and its ability to negotiate property tax discounts did not qualify as protectable trade secrets under Virginia’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Scott A. Schaefers also has a post on this case for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • And while we are on the topic of trade secrets cases in Virginia, are you looking for a primer on the epic DuPont v. Kolon case? Then check out the superb post analyzing DuPont’s case by Eulonda Skyles and Michael Spillner for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch Blog.
  • Speaking of DuPont and Kolon, “Kolon Succeeds in Getting Its Trade Secret Theft Arraignment Postponed,” advises Todd Sullivan in Sullivan’s Trade Secrets Blog.
  • “Ex-Advanced Micro Workers Can’t Shake Trade Secrets Suit,” reports Law360 and Bloomberg. For more on the AMD trade secrets dispute, see my post from last month on the recent preliminary injunction restraining those same employees from misappropriating AMD’s trade secrets.
  • “Newscaster tripped up by Non-Compete,” reports Dan Frith for Frith & Ellerman’s Virginia Non-Compete Law Blog.
  • “It’s Not Just for Patents Anymore: Using the ITC to Combat Theft of Trade Secrets,” recommends Mark Memelstein and Misasha C. Suzuki for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch Blog.
  • “Hey, I Thought We Had An Agreement: California Appellate Court Allows Party To Seek Attorney’s Fees In Trade Secret Case,” exclaims Paul Henson in a guest post for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • Jason Cornell of Fox Rothschild has another post comparing different state’s non-compete laws, this time “A Comparison Of Illinois And Florida Law Governing Non-Compete Agreements,” for Mondaq.
  • “UK Supreme Court Rules on Case Involving Misuse of Trade Secrets by Former Employee,” reports Ezra Steinhardt for Covington’s Inside TechMedia Blog.
  • Jay Yurkiw of Porter Wright continues to churn out fine posts on e-discovery issues relevant to trade secret and non-compete disputes. For his latest, see “Court Relies on Proportionality to Deny Inspection of Defendant’s Computers, Cell Phones and Email Accounts” for Porter Wright’s Technology Law Source Blog.
  • “Deter Cyber Theft Act Would Augment Federal Policy Against Industrial Espionage,” advises Kenneth Vanko in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Agreements Blog.
  • Interested in the interplay between “Liquidated Damages and Non-Competes”? Then check out Devin C. Dolive’s post for Burr & Forman’s Non-Compete Trade Secrets Law Blog. 

Cybersecurity Posts and Articles:

  • “Outside Law Firm Cybersecurity Under Scrutiny,” advises Catherine Dunn for Corporate Counsel.
  • “China’s Cyber Stonewall: Beijing won’t stop until it pays a price for its Internet thievery,” thunders The Wall Street Journal.
  • “How Vulnerable is Your Company to a Cyber Breach?” ask Clark Schweers and Jeffrey Hall for Corporate Counsel.
  • “What If China Hacks the NSA’s Massive Data Trove?” ponders Conor Freidersdorf for The Atlantic.
  • “Could Overreaction to Cybersecurity Threats Hurt Transparency at Home?” worries David S. Levine for Slate.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Posts and Cases:

  • In an initial skirmish that will inevitably lead to a lawsuit against the prosecutors in the Aaron Swartz CFAA case, “Judge Rejects Aaron Swartz’s Estate’s Request to Release Names of Individuals Involved in his Prosecution,” reports Hayes Hunt in the From the Sidebar Blog.
Here are the noteworthy trade secret, non-compete and cybersecurity stories from the past week, as well as one or two that I missed over the past couple of weeks:

Cybersecurity Posts and Articles: 
  • Last week’s report from the privately-funded IP Commission has triggered a lot of commentary on the issue of China, cybersecurity, and the international misappropriation of trade secrets. The Economist has chimed in, “Fighting China’s hackers: Is it time to retaliate against cyber-thieves?,” The New York Times has offered an Op-Ed “Preventing a U.S.-China Cyberwar,” as has Gerry Smith for The Huffington Post, “‘Hacking Back’ Could Deter Chinese Cyberattacks, Report Says.” Lisa Kilday also has a post for The IP Watchdog, as does Sophie Yu for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch Blog.
  • For a contrarian view of the report and its authors, see TechDirt’s article, “Fear Mongering Report Suggests ‘IP Theft From China’ One Of The Biggest Problems America Faces.”
  • “A primer on the keys to a complete cybersecurity incident response plan: Inside counsel that understand cybersecurity become defenders of their companies,” advises Daniel Lim for Inside Counsel.
  • “Hackers Find China Is Land of Opportunity,” reports Edward Wong for The New York Times.
  • “FTC Fires Back In Cybersecurity Case,” reports Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog.
  • “FTC Announces Information about Upcoming Mobile Security Forum,” advises Mike Nonanka for Covington’s Inside Privacy Blog.
  • Rob Radcliff provides his take on BYOD policies in his Smooth Transitions Blog.
  • “Employers Must Obtain Employee Consent For BYOD Programs,” recommends Yaron Dori and Jeff Kosseff of Covington & Burling LLP for Law360.
Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Cases, Posts and Articles
  • “Kolon Asks 4th Circ. To Ax $920M DuPont Trade Secrets Award” reports Law360.  In a summary of the oral arguments before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Scott Flaherty reports that Kolon focused on Judge Robert Payne’s denial of its motion to recuse himself because of his former firm’s involvement in a patent dispute for DuPont and on what Kolon believed was DuPont’s failure to provide proof on a trade secret by trade secret basis.
  • “Illinois Appellate Court Partially Reverses Broad Non-Compete Injunction Against Physicians,” reports Molly Joyce for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • “Customer Lists as Trade Secrets: What Protections Are Sufficient?” asks Eric Ostroff in his Protecting Trade Secrets Blog.
  • Brian Bialas suspects that the recent AMD v. Feldstein decision by the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts may have extended the inevitable disclosure doctrine in Massachusetts. In his post for Foley & Hoag’s Massachusetts Noncompete Law Blog, Brian notes the fact that Judge Hillman entered an injunction despite the defendants’ protestations that they had already turned over all confidential information to a third-party neutral after the lawsuit was commenced, reasoning that they, “must all remember large amounts of confidential AMD information that they learned during their employment.”  (For more on the decision, see my take here).
  • A case out of New York’s Fourth Appellate Department suggests that coupling a grant of stock options with a non-compete can be a messy affair if not done right, advises Jonathan Pollard in a recent post for the non-compete blog.
  • “Former Outback Steakhouse Employee Not Necessarily ‘Down Under’ For Allegedly Breaching Fiduciary Duty” advises Amy Dehnel for Berman Fink & Van Horn’s Georgia Non-Compete & Trade Secret News Blog.
  • In “Pennsylvania Appellate Court Orders Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Bad-Faith Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims,” Scott Schaeffers examines the recent Kraft v. Downey case for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • Rob Radcliff provides his take on BYOD policies in his Smooth Transistions Blog.
  • “Employers Must Obtain Employee Consent For BYOD Programs,” recommends Yaron Dori and Jeff Kosseff, Covington & Burling LLP for Law360.
  • “Chinese Trade Secret Theft Hits Universities,” reports Press Millen for Womble Carlyle’s Trade Secrets Blog.
  • “Non-Compete Agreements Aren’t for Everyone: The Necessity of Proving a ‘Legitimate Business Interest,’” advises Betsy Lensan Cook of Womble Carlyle for National Law Review.
  • “Exercise Gym Instructor Enjoined By Non-Compete Agreement,” reports David Poppick for Epstein Becker’s Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Posts and Cases:
  • “Password Sharing and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Revisited,” considers Kenneth Vanko in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Agreements Blog.

Here are the noteworthy trade secret, non-compete and cybersecurity stories from the past week, as well as one or two that I missed over the past couple of weeks:

Trade Secret and Non-Compete Posts and Articles:

  • A Pennsylvania Court of Appeals has rejected the two-prong test (objective test of speciousness and subjective test for bad faith) used by many federal courts for an award of attorneys fees for a bad faith trade secrets action under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act reports Law360. In Kraft v. Downey, the Superior Court reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a claim for attorneys fees by the defendants, even though the plaintiffs prevailed at trial on other claims. (A hat tip to Mark Grace for forwarding the opinion to me).
  • Ericsonn and Airvana have reached an agreement in principle to settle their trade secrets case, Bloomberg is reporting. Airvana had secured a preliminary injunction in New York Supreme Court that had threatened to disrupt a $3 billion opportunity with Sprint and had resulted in Airvana’s claim that Ericsonn had violated the injunction. For more on the case and injunction, see my March post here.
  • For the latest involving the prosecution of Walter Liew for the alleged theft of DuPont’s titanium dioxide trade secrets, see “Feds Say Execs Can’t Ax DuPont Trade Secrets Charges,” as reported by Law360.
  • “Using Computer Forensics to Investigate IP Theft,” advise Sid Venkatasen and Elizabeth McBride for Law Technology News.
  • “Kentucky Court Finds No Insurance Coverage for Trade-Secrets Claim,” reports Eric Ostroff in his Trade Secrets Law Blog.
  • “Massachusetts Federal Court Takes Jurisdiction Over ‘One-Man’ Georgia Corporation Whose Agent Allegedly Stole Trade Secrets in Massachusetts,” reports Brian Bialas for Foley & Hoag’s Massachusetts Noncompete Law Blog.
  • “Recapping the Latest Blue Belt Tech. Non-Compete Dispute (This Time vs. Stryker),” summarizes Jonathan Pollard for the non-compete blog.
  • “Act On Clarifying Ownership of Work-Related Social Media Accounts Before You Become ‘Dinner,'” recommends Daniel Schwartz in his Connecticut Employment Law Blog.
  • If you are into podcasts, check out, “The Administration is Focused on Preventing Trade Secrets Misappropriation. Your Business Should Be, Too,” by Victoria Cundiff of Paul Hastings.
  • “Proposed Non-Compete Legislation in Connecticut Follows Legislative Trend” advises Kenneth Vanko in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Blog.
  • If you are interested in more on the $44 million verdict in the Wellogix/Accenture dispute, check out “I Thought We Broke Up Years Ago! Why You Should “Throw Out” Trade Secrets As Soon As A Business Relationship Ends” by Matthew Kugazaki and Valerie Goo for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch and Eric Ostroff’s “A Cautionary Tale About Sharing Trade Secrets With Consultants — Fifth Circuit Affirms $44 Million Verdict.”

Cybersecurity Posts and Articles:

  • “California law would require breach notice if online account information is stolen,” reports Dan Kaplan for SC Magazine.
  • “Cyber Compliance: Hiring a Cybersecurity IT Firm for Rookies,” advises Christopher Matthews for The Wall Street Journal’s Risk & Compliance Reporter.
  • “Why CISPA is a global problem,” warns TechnoLlama.
  • “Data Breach – Your Organization Needs a Plan” recommends Nicole Reiman of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP for JDSupra.
  • “Corporate Security’s Weak Link: Click-Happy CEOs: Top Bosses, Exempt From Companywide Rules, Are More Likely to Take Cyber-Attackers’ Bait,” reports The Wall Street Journal. For more on Spearphishing (or attacks geared towards senior executives better known as whaling, see my post here).
  • “GSA, DOD Solicit Advice On Revamping Cybersecurity,” advises Kathryn Brenzel for Law360.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Posts and Cases: 

  • “Applying Georgia Long-Arm Statute, Eleventh Circuit Finds No Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Activity” in a CFAA dispute, courtesy of Colin Freer for Berman Fink Van Horn’s Georgia Non-Compete and Trade Secret News Blog.