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:

Legislative Developments
  • 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.

Continue Reading Monthly Wrap Up (October 27, 2017): Noteworthy Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Posts from Around the Web

Thursday Wrap-Up (July 4, 2013): Noteworthy Trade Secret, Covenant Not to Compete and Cybersecurity News from the Web
Continue Reading Thursday Wrap-Up (July 4, 2013): Noteworthy Trade Secret, Non-Compete and Cybersecurity News from the Web

Thursday Wrap-Up (May 2, 2013): Noteworthy Trade Secret, Non-Compete and Cybersecurity News from the Web
Continue Reading Thursday Wrap-Up (May 2, 2013): Noteworthy Trade Secret, Non-Compete and Cybersecurity News from the Web

Thursday Wrap-Up (April 18, 2013): Noteworthy Trade Secret, Non-Compete and Cybersecurity News from the Web
Continue Reading Thursday Wrap-Up (April 18, 2013): Noteworthy Trade Secret, Non-Compete and Cybersecurity News from the Web

The Trade Secret Litigator’s Top 10 Trade Secret and Non-Compete Cases of 2012: Nos. 4 through 7
Continue Reading The Trade Secret Litigator’s Top 10 Trade Secret and Non-Compete Cases of 2012: Nos. 4 through 7

Friday Wrap-Up (October 12, 2012): Noteworthy Trade Secret, Non-Compete and Cybersecurity News from the Web
Continue Reading Friday Wrap-Up (October 12, 2012): Noteworthy Trade Secret, Non- Compete and Cybersecurity News from the Web

Acordia of Ohio v. Fishel: Five Months Later, The Ohio Supreme Court Reverses Its Decision and Holds That Non-Competes Automatically Transfer to New Company After a Merger
Continue Reading Acordia of Ohio v. Fishel: Four Months Later, The Ohio Supreme Court Reverses Itself and Holds That Non-Competes Automatically Transfer to New Company After a Merger