Here are the noteworthy posts, articles and cases of the past week:

Trade Secret and Covenant Not to Compete Cases, Articles and Posts:

  • What was the value of Georgia House Bill 173, a bill that sought to update Georgia’s non-compete law after a voter referendum approved those agreements in 2010? Not much, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit which found that the law was unconstitutional and therefore could not support a claim that Georgia’s public policy favored non-competes. In Becham v. Crosslink Orthopaedics, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit elected to apply what it found to be existing Georgia law at the time of the contract that disfavored non-competes (rather than Pennyslvania law, which the covenant had identified as the governing law) and ultimately affirmed the district court’s decision not to enforce the covenant at issue. The Georgia General Assembly has since enacted HB 30, which replaced HB 173, but for non-competes in Georgia that pre-date May 11, 2011, it remains an uphill battle for enforcement. (A copy of the decision is attached as a PDF below).
  • It’s like watching a car wreck, you want to avert your eyes, but you . . . just . . . can’t . . . stop. The media frenzy over the CBS v. ABC kerfuffle over the Glass House reality show continues unabated: “CBS throws legal stones at ‘Glass House’: Eye claims ABC reality show a ‘Big Brother’ ripoff” reports The Chicago Tribune, “CBS Demands ABC Hand Over Tons of Internal ‘Glass House’ Documents,” claims The Hollywood Reporter, among others. Glass House is supposed to debut on Monday, June 18, so a ruling may be issued by the court by the end of this week.
  • “Under Armour former employee sues over non-compete agreement,” reports the Baltimore Business Journal. A former employe has taken the unusual step of a pre-emptive action to declare her non-compete unenforceable so that she can take a job in Vancouver. 
  • For more on the latest battle in the Mattel v. MGA saga, see, “MGA Insurer Takes Bratz Defense Dispute To 9th Circuit” as reported by Law360. 
  • The Virginia Supreme Court continues to be hostile to trade secret and non-compete claimants. In a post by Epstein Becker’s Trade Secrets & Non-Compete Blog, the Virginia Supreme Court reduced a $14 million trade secrets award to $1.4 million on the grounds that the evidence did not support that verdict. 
  • “One Year after Marsh and No Non-Compete Answers” notes Texas lawyer Rob Radcliff about the fallout from the big Texas Supreme Court decision last year in his Smooth Transitions Blog
  • “It’s Never Too Early to Start Protecting Trade Secrets and IP” emphasizes Shannon Green in Corporate Counsel
  • Six Steps to Prevent Data From Walking Out the Door” by Charles T. Graves and Laura M. Merritt in a guest article for Law Technology News.
  • “Could Siri Be Stealing Your Trade Secrets?” asks Sheldon Mak & Anderson’s EyeonIp Blog.
  • “How Does Apple Keep Trade Secrets So Well?” asks Kim Scheinberg. 
  • Russell Beck has his always exhaustive summary of recent trade secret and non-compete developments.

Cybersecurity Articles and Posts:

  • “Cloud Computing: Understanding Security and Jurisdictional Issues,” advises Skadden Arps in JDSupra.
  • “The Importance of Knowing Where in the World Cloud Data is Stored,” another fine article by Catherine Dunn of Corporate Counsel.

News You Can Use: 

Becham v. Crosslink.pdf (93.14 kb)