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?

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

As the first year anniversary of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) has just passed, it is worth taking a step back and taking stock of how courts have treated key provisions.  This will be the first of several posts covering developments under the DTSA and analyzing how it has been used since its enactment.

One of the most-discussed features of the DTSA was its creation of a “whistleblower” immunity that allows employees to share evidence of an employer’s alleged misconduct with government authorities or present that evidence in support of a retaliation claim under seal in court and avoid a claim that the employee misappropriated trade secrets when they disclosed that information. This provision, 18 U.S.C. §1833, is the only provision of the DTSA that preempts state law, so it affords protection to an employee against an employer’s claims under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act or common law as well.

As readers may recall, the DTSA requires employers who want to take advantage of the DTSA’s full protections to amend their contracts, employee agreements, and policies to provide notice of that whistleblower defense to its employees, which has been broadly defined to include independent contractors.  If a company fails to include that notice in its agreements or policies, it is foreclosed from seeking claims for attorney’s fees and exemplary damages under the DTSA.  The DTSA broadly defines an employee to include “any individual performing work as a contractor or consultant for an employer” so both 1099 and W-2 employees are covered under this provision.whistle 2

Not surprisingly, when the DTSA was enacted, many employers were concerned about what, if any notice, needed to be supplied to its employees about this immunity and to what extent they needed to amend their employment agreements and policies.  Section 1833(b)(3)(B) makes clear that an employer can comply with this notice provision if its employment agreement simply cross-references a policy document that more fully describes the employer’s reporting policy for a suspected violation of the law.  However, the DTSA does not define what kind of notice or language must be provided, so it remains an open question of whether a specific citation to the DTSA would be sufficient or whether the relevant language of the DTSA’s whistleblower provision needs to be included.

To date, there is only one case involving the DTSA’s whistleblower provision.  This should not come as too much of a surprise since the whistleblower provision’s primary consequences — a challenge to an award of attorneys’ fees or exemplary damages under the DTSA for failure to provide notice of that immunity  or the viability of the immunity itself– will generally require that a case have been fully litigated, something that has not happened with many DTSA cases. Continue Reading The Defend Trade Secrets Act After One Year: The Whistleblower Provision

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

Today’s post wraps up the Trade Secret Litigator’s Five Golden Rules for on-boarding a new employee and, fittingly, falls on Halloween. Today’s remaining Golden Rules primarily address the steps an employer needs to take in managing the employee who has been hired, and, as the case law reveals, may prevent various tricks (and rarely treats) to the new employer.

Golden Rule No. 3. The Visentin Rule: Protect the Legitimate Business Interests of the Former Employer. Having taken the steps to avoid or minimize risk during the hiring process, an employer still has to properly manage the employee once he/she joins the company, especially if that employee has a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement with his/her former employer. Fortunately, one of the leading cases on managing an employee with a covenant not to compete provides a textbook example of how to handle this situation. That case, IBM v. Visentin, came out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2012. In Visentin, the new employer, Hewlett-Packard undertook a number of affirmative steps to ensure that IBM’s trade secrets were protected and agreed that the new employee would not solicit his former customers for the remainder of the term of the non-compete.

The Southern District and Second Circuit approved of these efforts and refused to enjoin the employee – a mid-level manager – from working at HP. In the absence of any proof of misconduct by the employee, those courts found that this was a proper way to protect IBM’s trade secret and customer relationship interests while balancing the former employee’s right to find proper gainful employment.

The Visentin approach was also applied effectively by Google earlier this year in a high-profile dispute over its hiring of a cloud computing services manager who had worked previously for Amazon.com and was subject to a non-compete. As in Visentin, the Washington district court found that in the absence of evidence of misconduct by the former employee, Amazon.com’s interests were adequately protected by the safeguards put in place by Google to protect its trade secrets.

Of course, this approach is not foolproof, as the holding in a recent Massachusetts case, Aspect Software v. Barnett, unfortunately demonstrates. In that case, despite similar good faith efforts by the new employer and former employee, the court still enforced the non-compete at issue, although it commended the new employer and former employee for their efforts.

At the end of the day, an employer will increase its odds of avoiding litigation or minimizing its risk in that litigation by taking affirmative steps to prevent the use or disclosure of the competitor’s trade secrets and minimize intrusion into legitimately protected customer relationships. I have found that these steps are particularly effective in the “cease and desist” letter stage because they serve to put the former employer on notice that it may not have a basis for a lawsuit and can effectively give that employer pause before initiating litigation.

Golden Rule No. 4: If Litigation is Possible, Preserve, Preserve, Preserve. Given the reality of BYOD and the overlap between work and personal time, it is practically inevitable that some confidential information will make its way onto an employee’s personal computer or devices. This sometimes puts an employee between the proverbial rock and a hard place: if the employee deletes the information, there may be a claim of spoliation of evidence or a claim of some nefarious purpose behind the deletion. Alternatively, if the employee does not remove or delete the confidential information, he or she will almost certainly be accused of having improperly used or taken it.

As a result, if there is a chance of litigation, it is critical to preserve what was on the devices before deleting it. This means that forensic computer consultant will need to be engaged and likely image all devices before the information is removed and the devices sanitized under the guidance of counsel and that consultant. The images will then need to be kept by outside counsel so that they can be produced in litigation, if necessary.

Golden Rule No. 5: Keep a Close Eye on Mass Hirings. As readers of this blog know, cases involving the hiring of a team of people from a competitor (especially a sales team) generate the greatest waves and present the greatest risk of trade secret litigation by a former employer. The group dynamics in these situations also seem to foster greater opportunities for mischief — i.e., more pressure on business units and new hires to perform, the fact that the team may have been hired for a specific product, client or opportunity, etc. This means that in-house counsel and HR administrators need to monitor, follow up on, and continue to train these teams on the importance of preserving the confidentiality of the legitimate trade secrets of their former employer.

Last year’s Allergan v. Merz case out of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California illustrates the special dangers associated with hiring teams of people. In that case, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction enjoining the rollout of the cosmetic drug Xeomin for 10 months because he found that a sales team hired from Allergan had improperly used confidential marketing and customer information for Botox in connection with the prospective launch of Xeomin. Based on statements made at an early hearing, the outside and in-house counsel did not know about communications between the new sales team and its managers disseminating that confidential information and argued that Merz had no intention of using Allergan’s trade secrets. However, a year after defeating a TRO, Merz’s counsel produced documents that were contrary to those representations.

How can in-house counsel and outside counsel avoid this disaster? It starts with a culture of security and responsibility. Both in-house and outside counsel need to know that their business people have their back and that a culture respecting the rules outlined above will be enforced. In the Allergan v. Merz case, the disconnect between what was apparently going on at the Merz business level and what the lawyers understood was going on is striking. This suggests, at least to me, that the appropriate follow up was not done to ensure that counsel’s representations about not using Allergan’s trade secrets would be followed.

The best way to ensure new teams are following the rules of their new employer includes: (1) an emphatic initial face-to-face meeting communicating the importance of leaving the prior employer’s trade secrets behind, preferably chaired by the head of the business group, (2) periodic follow up, certifications and acknowledgements that no trade secrets or confidential information are being used or retained, and (3) training to reinforce those principles. However, all of the follow up in the world will be ineffective if managers and supervisors have not bought into these principles and do not enforce them among their team.

In sum, as these cases illustrate, courts will generally reward the employer who imposes safeguards and acts responsibly; conversely, the failure to on-board properly can be catastrophic.

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.

Here are some noteworthy posts from the past week and some catch-up on other posts from the past couple of weeks:
 
Trade Secret and Non-Compete Cases, Posts and Articles:

  • “CBS Settles Dispute Over ABC’s ‘Glass House,'” reports Law360. For more on this long-running trade secrets dispute, see my posts from last year here and here.
  • In “Bloomberg reveals safeguards for client info,” The Wall Street Journal reports on the various safeguards Bloomberg is committing to after the imbroglio last year when its journalists improperly accessed and reported on the subscriber information of its Wall Street clients.
  • “Failure To Define Trade Secrets Establishes Subjective Bad Faith For Attorneys’ Fees Award Under California UTSA,” advises James Goodman for Epstein Becker’s Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog.
  • “Do Non-Compete Agreements Stifle Innovation?” Distil Networks CEO Rami Essaid and LevelEleven CEO Bob Marsh debate the impact of non-compete agreements.
  • “Concerns Over Economic Growth Leads Some States to Limit Non-Compete Agreements,” advises John Paul Nefflen for Burr & Forman’s Non-Compete Trade Secrets Blog.
  • “How to draft an enforceable noncompete agreement in 5 steps,” recommends Jon Hyman for the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog.
  • “Do the Final Episodes of ‘Breaking Bad’ Qualify As Trade Secrets?” asks Kenneth Vanko in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Agreements Blog.
  • “New Hampshire Court Voids Non-Compete Clause in Independent Contractor Agreement,” reports Paul Freehling for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • “On Non-Compete Agreements: A Response to the Wall Street Journal’s Recent Article,” advises Jonathan Pollard for the non-compete blog.
  • For those in Michigan, “Dana Can’t Prove Trade Secrets Theft, Judge Rules,” reports Law360.
  • For more on the Dana case, see, “Accessing trade secrets is not the same as misappropriating trade secrets” by Tim Bukher for LawTechie.
  • “Is the DOJ Avoiding Domestic Trade Secret Cases?” asks Jan Wolfe for The AmLaw Litigation Daily.
  • “You Need To Work Harder To Fight Trade Secret Theft,” warn Michael Bunis and Anna Dray-Siegel of Choate Hall & Stewart LLP for Law360.
  • For those in Massachusetts, see Michael Rosen’s recent post, “More on ‘Material Change’ and Legislative Update,” for Foley Hoag’s Massachusetts Noncompete Law Blog.

Cybersecurity Posts and Articles:

  • “White House Posts Preliminary Cybersecurity Incentives,” advises Jessica Goldenberg for Proskauer’s Privacy Law Blog.
  • “Tackling Cyber Security Challenges in the Healthcare Industry,” reports Healthtech.

Computer Fraud & Abuse Act Posts and Articles:

  • “IP Cloaking Violates Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Judge Rules,” advises David Kravets for Wired.
  • “Southern District of Georgia Judge Narrowly Construes Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,” advises Neil Weinrich for Berman Fink Van Horn’s Georgia Non-Compete and Trade Secrets News Blog.
  • David Nosal’s criminal conviction under the CFAA has been upheld by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, reports Bob Egelko in, “Executive’s conviction upheld in trade-secrets theft,” for SFGate.
  • “It’s Time to Reform the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,” argues Scientific American.

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 Cases. Posts and Articles:

  • “Seagate Technology Recoups $630 Million Trade-Secrets Award” reports Business Week.  A Minnesota state appeals court has ruled that an arbitrator didn’t exceed his authority in awarding Seagate $525 million (and an additional $105 million in interest) in its trade secret dispute with Western Digital and a former Seagate employee. The arbitrator had found that some of the defendants’ evidence was fabricated regarding three of the trade secrets at issue and entered judgment against Western and the employee, Sining Mao, as a sanction.
  • “Even Preparing To Compete In Texas May Be Prohibited During A Non-Competition Covenant Period” advises Paul Freehling for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.  Rob Radcliff also has a post on this decision, “Anti-Planning Provisions – A New Non-Compete Weapon?” in his Smooth Transitions Blog.
  • And speaking of Texas, “Physician Noncompetition Agreements May Be Challenged More Often After Recent Texas Appellate Decision” warns Randy Bruchmiller for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • “Five Year Non-Compete Enforced In Indiana” reports Peter Steinmeyer for Epstein Becker’s Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog.
  • For the latest on non-compete legislation in Massachusetts, see “Massachusetts Noncompete Bill – Hearing Date” by Russell Beck in his Fair Competition Law Blog.  Seyfarth Shaw’s Erik Weibust also has a post on the legislation.
  • The Southern District of New York has recently held “Marketing Concepts Are Not Trade Secrets” advises Eric Ostroff in his Trade Secrets Protection Blog.
  • In “Don’t Chase Your Tail in Pursuit of the “Perfect Non-Compete,” Michael Greco offers some sound and practical advice in Fisher & Phillips’ Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Blog.
  • “The Line Between Trade Secrets and Patents: Getting Dual IP Coverage on the Same Technology” recommends Matthew Poppe and Morvarid Metanat for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch Blog.
  • “Myriad’s Trade Secret Trump Card: The Myriad Database of Genetic Variants” reports Courtenay Brinckerhoff of Foley & Lardner for JDSupra Law News.
  • “The next controversy in genetic testing: clinical data as trade secrets?” ask Robert Cook-Deegan, John M. Conley, James P Evans and Daniel Vorhaus for The European Journal of Human Genetics.
  • “The Business End Of The ‘Snowden Lessons'” reports Anne Sutton of Dentons and Erik Laykin of Duff & Phelps Corp. for Law360.
  • “More Answers To Your Noncompete Questions” provides Donna Ballman for her Screw You Guys, I am Going Home Blog.
  • “Texas Public Information Act: Shielding Your Company from the Open Records Sword” advises Jack Skaggs of Jackson Walker for JDSupra Law News.
  • In “Trade Secrets Whistleblower SLAPPed In Effort to Dismiss Lawsuit,” Ken Vanko reports on the recent dismissal of a whistleblower claim brought against Anhueser-Busch in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Agreements Blog.  For more on this case, see my post from the spring.

Cybersecurity Posts and Articles:

  • Looking to limit others from digitally eavesdropping you?  Then check out “Digital Tools to Curb Snooping” by Somni Semgupta for The New York Times Bigs Blog.
  • “U.S. Cybersecurity Plan Not Designed To Increase Regulation, Officials Say” claims Bloomberg BNA.
  • “How America Is Fighting Back Against Chinese Hackers” advises Adam Clark Estes for Gizomodo.

Computer Fraud & Abuse Act Posts and Articles:

  • “MIT Intervenes In Release Of Aaron Swartz Case Details” reports Gerry Smith for The Huffington Post.

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 Cases. Posts and Articles:

  • “Connecticut Governor Vetoes Noncompete Statute Passed By Legislature,” reports Daniel P. Hart for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog. Last Friday, Governor Dannel P. Malloy vetoed Public Act No. 13-309, sending the bill to the legislature with a letter noting his concerns about a lack of clarity in the final version of the bill. The bill essentially required employers to provide some reasonable notice of a non-compete to an employee or prospective employee.  David Popick has a post for Epstein Becker’s Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog, as does Russell Beck in his Fair Competition Blog.
  • “Texas Appeals Court Guts $40M Energy Trade Secret Verdict” against Southwestern Energy Group, reports Law360.
  • “Elevator Sales Company and Former Employee in Interesting Non-Compete Fight,” reports Jonathan Pollard in the non-compete blog.
  • “Are WWE Wrestling Results Trade Secrets?” asks Eric Ostroff in his Trade Secrets Protection Blog.
  • “Recent Conflicting Decisions Make It Potentially Easier and Harder to Enforce Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Covenants,” advises Choate Hall & Stewart’s Employment and Benefit Group for JDSupra.
  • “Using Covenants Not to Compete in the Health Care Industry Part 1 – Understand the Basics,” advises Lee A. Spinks from Poyner Spruill.
  • And while on the topic of non-competes and doctors, “Judges giving departing doctors new leverage,” reports Claire Bushey for Crain’s Chicago Business.
  • “Restaurant Wars: Restrictive Covenants for Chefs & Tandoori Chicken Tikka,” reports Daniel Schwartz for the Connecticut Employment Law Blog.
  • “California officials wrestle with handling trade secrets on fracking,” reports The Los Angeles Times.
  • “Benefits of Early Discovery in Defending Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims,” advise Brent J. Gurney, Joshua T. Ferrentino and Alexander B. White for The New York Law Journal.
  • “Factors to Consider in Cross-Border Trade Secret Protection,” recommends The IP Exporter.
  • “Smoking Gun or Blowing Smoke? Five Tips to Make Sure That Computer Forensic Evidence of Trade Secret Theft Is What You Think It Is,” advise Thomas Gray and Elizabeth McBride for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch.
  • “My Issue With PRATSA: The Rule of Lenity,” argues Kenneth Vanko in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Agreements Blog.
  • “Please, Do Not Trust Your New Employer to Interpret Your Non-Compete Clause,” pleads Laura Ellerman for Frith & Ellerman’s Virginia Non-Compete Law Blog.
  • “Money, Money, Money: Top 10 Trade Secret Verdicts,” reports Rob Shwartz and Cam Pham for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch.
  • “Five Things to Consider When Hiring an Employee From a Competitor,” recommends Benjamin Fink for Berman Fink Van Horn’s Georgia Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Report Blog.

Cybersecurity Posts and Articles:

  • “U.S., Firms Draw a Bead on Chinese Cyberspies,” reports The Wall Street Journal. This fascinating articles details the recent cooperation between the Obama Administration and various technology and internet companies.
  • “Nations Buying as Hackers Sell Computer Flaws,” reports The New York Times.
  • “Cybersecurity Pros Call For Federal Breach Notification Law,” advises Law360.