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 Cases:

  • On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Trade Secrets Clarification Act, 388 to 4, and the bill now goes to President Obama’s desk, hopefully for his signature, reports Robert Milligan and Jessica Mendelson for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog (Gene Quinn’s IPWatchdog also has a post on the bill). According to Robert, Jessica and Gene, the House can suspend its rules to address uncontroversial changes to law, provided 2/3 vote can be mustered. The Act was passed unanimously last month by the Senate in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s holding in U.S. v. Aleynikov (for more, see my posts on the Act and the Aleynikov decision).   
  • Speaking of Sergey Aleynikov, he has moved one step closer to getting his $2.4 million in attorneys fees reimbursed from the very employer from whom he was charged with stealing. According to Law360, U.S. District Court Judge Kevin McNulty expressed sympathy for Aleynikov’s position and denied motions for summary judgment filed by both sides, concluding that discovery was still needed. Employers may want to re-check their indemnification bylaws and rules and ensure that legal fees for defending against charges of theft from the company are carved out. Alison Frankel also has a post on the case in her On The Case Blog for Reuters. 
  • “Texas High Court Will Hear Russian Trade Secret Theft Case” reports Law360. The plaintiff, Moncrief Oil International, is asking the Texas Supreme Court to reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the case on personal jurisdiction grounds.
  • “Medical Device Industry Remains a Hotbed for NonCompete Cases,” reports Susan M. Guerette for Fisher & Phillips’ Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Blog.
  • Looking for a brush up on “Non-Compete Suits and TROs”? Check out Kenneth Vanko’s recent post in Legal Developments for Non-Competition Agreements.
  • “Microsoft, Motorola Want More Docs Sealed In Patent Row” citing trade secrets, reports Law360.
  • Another arbitration decision in the non-compete context is out, this time from Wisconsin, reports Epstein Becker’s Trade Secrets & Non-Competes Blog. In Engedal v. Menard, Inc., a Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s finding that an arbitration provision was unconscionable because it had a non-compete provision.
  • “Ousted ISC Exec Can’t Use Broker’s Client Data, Court Rules,” again from Law360. The Texas Appellate Court found that investment firm ISC Group Inc. was entitled to a broader injunction in a trade secrets case against a former vice president to prevent him from using client data to solicit those clients to his new business.
  • “Indiana Court Reminds Us To Read Our Contracts And Protect Our Trade Secrets” notes Josh Durham in Poyner Spruill’s Under Lock & Key Blog.

Cybersecurity Articles and Posts:

  • “Find the Weakest Software Link Before Hackers Do” warns Judy Selby for Corporate Counsel.
  • “Defending against cyber-attacks: Can companies “hack back” against their attackers?” asks Todd Taylor for Inside Counsel.
  • “Ex-IBM privacy officer on preparing for the future of cybersecurity” writes Catherine Dunn for Corporate Counsel.
  • “The Legal Implications of BYOD: Preparing Personal Device Use Policies” from the Information Law Group.

News You Can Use:

  • “What Instagram’s New Terms of Service Mean for You” advises The New York Times Bits Blog.