As readers of this blog know, on April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission voted to adopt a rule banning virtually all employee noncompetes. The rule is scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024. If that happens, how will companies protect their trade secrets, confidential information, customer goodwill, and the integrity of their

On January 1, 2024, California officially began exporting its ban on noncompetes, nonsolicits, broad confidentiality agreements, and likely no-recruits to the rest of the country.

As Russell Beck has written, in September and October, California passed two laws that together will: (1) expand the scope of California’s ban on employee noncompetes and other restrictive covenants

Here are the noteworthy cases, articles and posts from last month, along with several DTSA cases from January that didn’t make it into last month’s update:

Notable Defend Trade Secrets Act and Federal Trade Secret Developments, Opinions and Posts:

  • For those interested in shaping an important trade secrets resource for the federal bench, Berkeley Professor Peter Menell is looking for comments to the Trade Secret Case Management Judicial Guide (TSJCMG), which is intended as a “go-to” resource for judges in these cases. In a post for Patently-O, Peter describes how the TSCMJG came into existence. He also discusses the unique qualities of trade secret cases that prompted the TSCMJG, including (1) the challenges of trade secret identification; (2) the highly emotional nature of trade secret cases, and (3) the interplay between criminal and civil proceedings in these cases. A number of trade secret luminaries (Vicki Cundiff, Jim Pooley, Peter Toren, Elizabeth Rowe, Rebecca Wexler and Professor Menell) have already contributed to its drafting, and for those interested in providing comments, please reach out to Peter at pmenell@law.berkeley.edu (please note he is working on a tight timeline).
  • Disputes over inventorship are not confined to patent cases and often arise in trade secrets cases too. However, that question does not guarantee federal subject matter jurisdiction, as the defendants learned in a decision remanding an ownership dispute removed to federal court back to state court. In Calvary Indus., Inc. v. Winters, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Judge Timothy Black rejected arguments that a state court declaratory relief action over the ownership of several disputed patent applications involved federal patent or trade secret claims and ruled that it belonged in state court. In particular, Judge Black found that declaratory relief for a correction of ownership under 35 U.S.C. § 256 was premature because no patents had yet issued.
  • Can a pleading citing “information and belief” for its allegations of misappropriation survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)? If the information is solely within the possession of the defendant and the inference is otherwise plausible, the answer is “yes,” according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In Ahern Rentals, Inc. v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc., the Eighth Circuit joined six other federal circuits that found this form of pleading to be sufficient. For more on the decision, check out Scott Lauck’s post on the case for Missouri Lawyers Media.
  • The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently rejected a motion by Amazon to dismiss a complaint accusing Amazon of improperly reverse engineering the artificial intelligence (AI) trade secrets of a vendor. In GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 21-cv-9321, 2023 WL 2051739 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2023), the vendor GateGuard alleged that Amazon was misappropriating GateGuard’s “proprietary security technology that acts as an ‘AI Doorman’ for multifamily residential properties, allowing authorized users to unlock entrances remotely and to monitor activity.” Judge John Koeltl’s sixty-three page opinion focused on, among other things, Gateguard’s terms of service agreement which specifically forbid reverse engineering. For more on the case, check out McGuire Wood’s Trade Secrets Tidbits post by Sarah Holub, Meghaan Madriz, Yasser Madriz and Miles Indest.
  • Staying on the topic of Rule 12(b)(6) motions, during the course of my review of these cases each month, I am seeing a trend by federal courts denying these motions on the trade secret claims but sometimes dismissing other tort claims. This trend is supported by the decisions above, as well as other decisions this past month by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Aristotle Int’l, Inc. v. Acuant, Inc. (a case involving data scraping), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Hardwire, LLC v. Freyssinet Int’l Et Cie, et al. (dismissing Sherman Act claims), and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Sunjoy Indus. Group, Ltd., v. Permasteel, Inc. (dismissing trade dress claims).
  • Looking for ideas for your motion in limine to exclude improper evidence at your next trade secret trial? Then look no further than HP Tuners, LLC v. Cannata, where the U.S. District Court of Nevada ruled on a host of different requests to exclude evidence, including requests under Daubert and other expert challenges, Rule 408 settlement discussions and evidence of the parties’ respective wealth.
  • Never underestimate the power of an accelerated development timetable to create an inference of misappropriation when seeking an injunction. In Palltronics, Inc. v. Paliot Solutions, Inc., Judge Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan was persuaded by the fact that the former employees’ brand-new company “managed to accomplish in one year, what it took Lightning [the former employer] over five years and $25 million in research and development to achieve” and she ruled “[i]t can be inferred that such dramatic progress was possible because Defendant relied on Lightning’s former employees’ knowledge of the trade secrets, processes and other information they gained from working at Lightning to set up its business.”

Continue Reading Monthly Wrap Up (March 12, 2023): Noteworthy Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Cases, Developments and Posts

The FTC’s proposed ban on noncompete agreements (and other “de facto” noncompetes such as overly broad nondisclosure agreements) relies in large part on the research done by University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business Professor Evan Starr — one of the leading scholars in the field.

Join Ben, Russell and

As many of you know from my post last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) just proposed a ban on noncompetes with virtually no exceptions. And, the FTC has also placed nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) in its crosshairs.

No one knows this area better than Russell, and I mean no one, so please join 

December was unusually busy and 2023 started with a bang courtesy of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed rule banning noncompetes.  Here are the noteworthy cases and posts from last month, with several notable posts regarding the FTC’s big announcement on Thursday, for good measure:

Noteworthy Defend Trade Secrets Act Cases, Federal Trade Secrets Opinions and Related Commentary:

  • Courts continue to scrutinize claims of irreparable injury in trade secret cases, and no court runs a tighter ship than the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In Tomgal LLC v. Castano, District Court Judge John Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied an injunction request, reasoning that irreparable injury did not exist because any injury arising from the misappropriated trade secrets could be easily calculated.  Judge Koeltl found “every unit of inventory that [defendant] Fashion Code sells to a Robin Ruth distributor is a sale that Robin Ruth did not make,” i.e., profits from the sale of the products containing the misappropriated trade secrets could be easily monetized. Judge Koeltl also rapped the plaintiff’s knuckles on laches grounds, finding that a 7-month delay was substantial and unreasonable.
  • If you don’t identify your trade secrets with particularity, you are not going to get an injunction.  That is the simple message that many federal courts are sending to trade secret owners, and a recent decision by District Court Judge Nugent of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio is the latest. To date, most of the discussion regarding trade secret identification has been at the discovery stage but now courts are reinforcing that message by denying early requests for an injunction. In Collar Jobs, LLC v. Slocum, Judge Nugent denied the request for an injunction against a former joint venture partner, expressing concern that “it is not entirely clear what Collar Jobs’ ‘trade secret’ is.”   He also questioned the novelty of the alleged “platform” trade secret before him, which appeared to be a combination trade secret of customer and prospect data.
  • So Judge Nugent’s opinion begs the following question: should the DTSA be amended to include a requirement that trade secret identification is provided early in a case?  In an article for Law360, Willenken LLP’s Amelia Sargent details recent rulings by the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit and Ninth Circuit recognizing the need for identification and advocates for that amendment.  It’s a good read and Amelia’s points are reasonable and sound.
  • A recent decision out of Massachusetts cuts against the trend of decisions broadly interpreting the extraterritorial reach of the DTSA.  In Sysco Machinery Corp. v. Cymtek Solutions, Inc., District Court Judge Leo Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts ruled the sale of products in the U.S. that were made using the alleged trade secrets, without more, did not qualify as “an act in furtherance” of misappropriation under the DTSA.  According to Judge Sorokin, the defendant Cymtek used the misappropriated trade secrets improperly to make competing machines in Taiwan, but all of that conduct occurred in Taiwan or outside the United States; as a result, on this record, he found that there was neither “misappropriation” in the United States nor an “act in furtherance of the offense . . . committed in the United States” as required under §1837(2) of the DTSA.  Contrast this ruling to the decisions described in my September 2021 post.  Tough to reconcile in my judgment.

Continue Reading Monthly Wrap Up (January 9, 2023): Noteworthy Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Posts, Cases and Developments

2022 was a momentous year in trade secret and restrictive covenant law. Join BenRussell and me as we take a look back on some of the more significant developments in trade secret and restrictive covenant law from the past year and what we are expecting in the coming year. We discuss recent criminal

For the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s 125th Anniversary, John and Russell (both former chairs of the AIPLA Trade Secret Law Committee) and Ben (the current chair) went on the road to talk to the current AIPLA President, Brian Batzli, immediate past-President, Patrick Coyne, and Executive Director, Vince Garlock, at this year’s

When an employee leaves for a competitor, it’s not uncommon for the former employer to investigate whether the employee took information on the way out the door. But a recent case from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Patel v. Duke Hospitality LLC, highlights some limits on what the former employer can do.

As Ben