Trade secret litigation is expensive. But trade secret owners often don’t have the resources to pay for the litigation necessary to protect their rights against a larger adversary with deeper pockets.
Enter: litigation funding.
Litigation funding can level the playing field and provide the resources necessary for the trade secret owner to recover damages and
I will be speaking at the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s 2024 Annual Meeting on Saturday, October 26, 2024 from 9:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. ET at the Closing Plenary Session as part of the IP Year in Review panel at the Gaylord National Resort in National Harbor, Maryland.
It will be a dynamic session
Remedying the overseas misappropriation of U.S. companies’ trade secrets, particularly in China, was one of Congress’ core goals when it enacted the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in 2016. But despite that goal, some district courts have wrestled over the extent to which the DTSA could apply to misconduct that occurred abroad. Now, in Motorola Sols., Inc. v. Hytera Commc’ns Corp. Ltd., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has resoundingly affirmed the extraterritorial reach of the DTSA, finding that worldwide sales of a product incorporating misappropriated trade secrets may be recoverable as damages. The Seventh Circuit has ruled that, under the DTSA, liability can accrue for acts committed wholly abroad if some act in furtherance of the misappropriation occurred in the U.S. In the Motorola case, the marketing of the product at trade shows in the U.S. was a sufficient act in furtherance of the overseas misappropriation for a damages award including sales from around the world.Continue Reading Motorola v. Hytera: The Seventh Circuit Upholds Damages for Worldwide Sales under the Defend Trade Secrets Act
I will be providing a 1-hour webinar for the Ohio State Bar Association entitled “Strategies for Defusing Trade Secret Disputes” on Friday, August 16, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. ET. Here’s a description of the presentation:
What can employers and employees do to avoid litigation and minimize their risk once they are ensnared in a
On Thursday, March 21, 2024, I will be speaking at the Defense Research Institute’s 2024 Business and Intellectual Property Litigation Super Conference on a panel, “Tips from the Trenches: Litigating and Trying Trade Secret Cases as a Plaintiff and Defendant, What Every Business Needs to Know,” with Ben Fink of Berman, Fink, Van Horn P.C.
In a post last year, I proposed a solution for a recurring problem in trade secret litigation–namely, the situation where a former employee takes information but quickly regrets their conduct and looks for a way to resolve the dispute. As readers will recall, I proposed a “safe harbor” that would allow that former employee to provide disclosures and an injunction to address their former employer’s legitimate concerns. After my post, several colleagues, including my friends and fellow trade secret travelers Russell Beck and Mark Klapow, noted a potential dilemma for a trade secret owner. They suggested that I should consider a similar protection for plaintiffs whose suspicions about trade secret misappropriation never fully materialize or who face litigation costs that outstrip that litigation’s utility. To afford protection to those trade secret owners, this post proposes an “off ramp” procedure early in a trade secret dispute that would hopefully alleviate those situations.Continue Reading Another Idea for Improving the Defend Trade Secrets Act: Providing an “Off Ramp” to the Plaintiff Who Wants to Avoid a Costly Litigation
On Thursday, March 14, 2024 and Friday, March 15, 2024, I will be speaking at the AIPLA 2024 Trade Secret Summit on three panels. The Trade Secret Summit has become one of the premiere trade secret law events, with thought leaders and trade secret experts meeting to debate and discuss key developments in trade secret
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024, I will be giving a one-hour Webinar/CLE for the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA) entitled “Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Law Year in Review.”
As readers of this blog know, the number of trade secret and restrictive cases continues to grow each year. As a result, trade secret disputes and
A recent scandal unites two of my favorite passions: college football and trade secret litigation. As most sports fans are aware, the University of Michigan’s polarizing head coach Jim Harbaugh was suspended last Friday by the Big Ten Conference as part of a disciplinary action against Michigan for improperly recording and stealing signs in violation of the conference’s Sportsmanship Policy. The scandal unfolded quickly as the NCAA announced it was investigating Michigan’s football team on October 20, and then metastasized as The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal began to cover it. Michigan has a splendid football team this year and one of the strongest teams in college football. But from my vantage point, Michigan’s administration has put that potential championship season at risk by mishandling its response to the scandal and provoking a confrontation with the Big Ten’s Commissioner, Tony Petitti. As explained below, Michigan’s mistakes provide a case study for parties accused of stealing another’s trade secrets on how to avoid the hard lessons that Michigan is absorbing now.Continue Reading Five Lessons Trade Secret Defendants Can Learn from the Michigan Sign-Stealing Scandal
A debate is growing within the trade secret community about the scope of information that should be protected–specifically, confidential information that does not rise to the level of a trade secret. This debate is largely between employers and their counsel who want to have every available tool to protect all of their information, and those who believe existing trade secret law provides adequate protection and therefore, information that doesn’t meet that standard isn’t worthy of protection (hence, the derogatory moniker “mere confidential information”). On October 12, 2023, in Hanneman Family Funeral Home & Crematorium v. Orians, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed this issue as well as another noteworthy issue–whether customer information shared with the government can qualify as a trade secret. But as a concurring opinion by Justice Patrick Fischer persuasively argues, the Supreme Court passed up on an opportunity to squarely decide the issue of whether “mere confidential information” should be preempted (and therefore not protectable), a ruling that would be in line with the majority of other states holding the UTSA prohibits claims seeking protection for information that doesn’t rise to the level of a trade secret. Continue Reading Ohio’s Supreme Court Ducks the Question of Whether “Mere Confidential Information” Is Protectable