The issue of trade secret identification, on its face, seems like an elementary and uncontroversial one. In concept, every trade secret plaintiff should be expected to identify the trade secrets in the lawsuit it brings. After all, the plaintiff knows best what it considers to be a trade secret and what it doesn’t consider to be a trade secret, and the defendant shouldn’t be left to guess what those trade secrets might be. For these and other reasons, California, a key bellwether state for trade secret law, has long required by statute that a party claiming trade secret misappropriation identify those trade secrets with specificity before being permitted to conduct discovery relating to its trade secret claim. However, nothing tests the limits of common sense like the realities of litigation, and plaintiffs in California have complained that this procedure has been misused by defendants to frustrate or derail otherwise meritorious trade secret cases. Perhaps for these reasons, courts outside California remain divided over the so-called California rule as several recent rulings have demonstrated. Continue Reading Are Other States Following California’s Lead On Trade Secret Identification?
Here are the noteworthy trade secret and restrictive covenant posts from September and some of October:
- Massachusetts is once again contemplating multiple bills regarding non-competes as well as a possible adoption of what appears to be the DTSA advises Russell Beck in his Fair Competition Blog. Russell and his team also have summaries of legislative activity in Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and West Virginia, among others.
One of the most hotly contested disputes in the Waymo v. Uber trade secrets lawsuit has centered around the disclosure of a forensic consultant’s due diligence report that Uber commissioned after learning that its former star engineer, Anthony Levandowski, had taken confidential files from his former employer Waymo. Uber and Levandowski had vigorously resisted the production of the report but the court order directing its production was recently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That due diligence report, which was prepared by the reputable forensics firm Stroz Friedberg, has now been made public. As I discuss below, the report is a jarring document and it has information that may be damaging to both sides. However, its most significant contribution to the lawsuit may be the fact that Uber’s own consultant (Stroz Friedberg) was providing multiple red flags to Uber that it was going to pay $680 million to someone that Stroz Friedberg suspected had lied, destroyed key documents and orchestrated efforts with other former Waymo employees to frustrate its investigation. Waymo is not unscathed by the report either, as it is evident that substantial amounts of highly confidential information made its way out the door, calling into question the safeguards Waymo had in place to protect trade secrets it is now valuing at over $1.8 billion. A copy of the due diligence report can be found here.
I am honored to be presenting the Year in Review for Trade Secrets Law at the plenary session of the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s 2017 Annual Meeting this Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 9 a.m. at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C.
I will be covering significant trade secret developments from the past year, including a discussion of key rulings in the Waymo v. Uber Technologies case, developments under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), including recent cases addressing the ex parte seizure order, whistleblower protection and restrictions on injunctions involving employment. I hope to also cover the recent American Bar Association Ethics Opinion reinforcing lawyers’ obligations to protect trade secrets, as well as other noteworthy rulings and opinions.
Registration for the Annual Meeting can be found here. Hope you can join us.
I am very excited to announce that I have been invited to speak on trade secret issues for the 27th All Ohio Annual Institute on Intellectual Property in Cincinnati and Cleveland this week. For those in Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana who may be interested in attending, I will be providing a presentation entitled “What Driverless Cars, Solar Panels and Tapping Robots Can Teach Us About Trade Secrets Law” this Wednesday, September 13, 2017 in Cincinnati and Thursday, September 14, 2017 in Cleveland.
The All Ohio Institute is sponsored by the Cincinnati Bar Association and Cleveland Intellectual Property Law Association, with the cooperation of the Cincinnati Intellectual Property Law Association and the Dayton Intellectual Property Law Association. The Cincinnati presentation will begin at 8:30 a.m. at the Northern Kentucky Convention Center, 1 West River Center Blvd., Covington, Kentucky. The Cleveland presentation will also start at 8:30 a.m. and will be held at the Marriott Downtown at Key Center, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio.
I will be covering noteworthy developments under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), including the forces that led to its enactment, its legislative history, the DTSA’s key provisions, and recent cases involving the DTSA’s ex parte seizure order, whistleblower provision and injunctions involving employment, as well as its interplay with Ohio’s state trade secrets law. I will also cover some of the other big developments in trade secrets law, including the Waymo v. Uber case, the recent American Bar Association opinion reinforcing lawyers’ obligations to protect trade secrets, and other noteworthy rulings and opinions.
Registration for the presentation can be found here. Hope you can join us for what should be a very interesting seminar.
Here are the noteworthy trade secret, restrictive covenant and cybersecurity posts from the month of August (warning, there are a lot):
Defend Trade Secrets Act
- Munger Tolles’ Miriam Kim, Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke and Laura Smolowe have put together another fine summary of the trends they are tracking under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. There are several interesting findings in the summary. For example, state courts and state law remain the preferred forum and substantive law for trade secrets claimants, at least at this time. According to the summary, while 378 DTSA cases have been filed in federal and state courts, more than 515 complaints with trade secret claims have been filed with no DTSA claims in federal and state courts throughout the U.S. I have to admit that I was surprised by this finding, as I expected that litigants would be eager to secure a federal forum using the DTSA. I suspect that most of those state law cases involve restrictive covenants and that the plaintiffs are more comfortable with a local judge enforcing a non-compete or want to avoid entanglements arising from the DTSA’s limitations on injunctions. Or it might be that they simply want to go with the law they know best, which would be the more developed state trade secret law regime. In any event, a very interesting finding.
- One of the more recent (and unexpected) developments under the DTSA has been the number of motions to dismiss challenging DTSA claims. Olga May has a post for Fish & Richardson’s Litigation Blog detailing those decisions on those motions, which range from challenges to the specificity of the trade secrets pleaded to whether the complaint comports with the standards under Twombly and Iqbal.
- For an update on the modest number of ex parte seizure order filings under the DTSA, see Michael Renuad of Mintz Levn’s article in the National Law Journal.
Two federal courts have issued important rulings scaling back the use of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. 1030, et seq., for alleged violations of online agreements. These decisions are noteworthy in the trade secret area because employers and businesses have used the CFAA when they believe that a former employee or competitor has improperly accessed their electronic records. In the first decision, EarthCam, Inc. v. OxBlue Corp., et al., 2017 WL 3188453 (11th Cir. Aug. 1, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected a claim that a competitor’s access of a customer account violated the CFAA (a link to the opinion can be found here). And in the second, hiQ Laboratories, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., Case No. 3:17-cv-03301 (EMC) (N.D. California Aug. 14, 2017), Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that a violation of LinkedIn’s online terms and conditions did not support a CFAA claim. (A link the opinion can be found here). Judge Chen’s opinion is particularly noteworthy because it appears to depart from some of the reasoning of a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that allowed Facebook to invoke the CFAA. As explained below, these rulings may signal a growing judicial reluctance to allow the CFAA to be used to limit otherwise publicly-available information.
A recent decision by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addresses a very timely and novel question: can a website provider enforce the equivalent of a covenant not compete through an online clickwrap agreement? In TopstepTrader, LLC v. OneUp Trader, LLC, Case No. 17 C 4412 (N.D. Illinois June 28, 2017), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected one website provider’s effort to do just that, reasoning that the provider was attempting to use its website’s terms and conditions to improperly restrict competition under Illinois non-compete law. The opinion, which can be found here, may prove to be a significant one as courts wrestle with the enforceability of online terms of condition that may limit competition or the use of information publicly available through those websites. (A shout out to Evan Brown’s Internet Cases for first reporting on this case). Continue Reading Can A Website Provider Use A “Clickwrap” Agreement to Enforce A Non-Compete?
Here are the noteworthy trade secret, restrictive covenant and cybersecurity posts from the past month or so:
The Defend Trade Secrets Act
- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has found that certain deer registry information qualified as a combination trade secret under the DTSA and Oklahoma’s version of the UTSA, as explained by Michael Weil and Tierra Piens for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch blog.
- The issue of whether the DTSA applies to misappropriation that may have taken place prior to the DTSA’s enactment has been one of the more frequent areas of litigation under the DTSA. Jonathan Shapiro of Epstein Becker has a summary on these cases for Law360.
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?