Kenneth Vanko, Russell Beck and I have completed our eleventh Fairly Competing Podcast, “Trade Secrets, Back to Basics Part 2.”

In Episode 11, Russell, Ken and I discuss commonly used security measures businesses implement to protect trade secret information. We examine security steps companies should take at the time key employees join the organization, as well as those exit interview steps that lead to the better protection of confidential business information. Finally, we discuss the perils of “bring your own device” policies that companies utilize, which may impact the ability to protect trade secrets adequately.

You can listen to the podcast by going to the Fairly Competing website or clicking the link below. Or you can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes. (As always, we’d appreciate your feedback).

Listen to this episode.

The corrected version of today’s Thursday Wrap-Up post is posted below. A technical glitch caused the post to inadvertently launch last night so we apologize to our subscribers. We appreciate your loyalty and work hard to deliver valuable content. Thank you for your patience.  Now, to the noteworthy trade secret, non-compete and cybersecurity stories from the past week: Trade Secret and Non-Compete Cases, Posts and Articles:
  • For you sports fans, a budding dispute is emerging in the NBA over the enforceability of Boston Celtics coach Doc Rivers’ non-compete. Rivers, one of the more highly regarded NBA coaches, has been approached by the Los Angeles Clippers but a non-compete in his contract may prevent his move. For their take on the situation, check out Rob Dean’s post, “Calling Foul on Doc Rivers’ Non-Compete Contract,” for Frith & Ellerman’s Virginia Non-Compete Blog as well as Kenneth Vanko’s post in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Agreements Blog.
  • Wondering how the U.S. Supreme Court’s Myriad decision may affect the use of trade secrets? Then check out “In Setting Genes Free, Supreme Court Decision Will Put Greater Emphasis on Trade Secret Protection in Biotech,” by Michael Baniak for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • For the latest on the high profile prosecution of Walter Liew and the Pangang Group, see “Trade Secrets Charges Survive Dismissal Bid In DuPont Case,” reports Law360.
  • “Creators of 5-hour ENERGY file complaint against DOJ for requesting ‘trade secrets,'” advises Joyce DeWitt for the Statesman Journal Blog.
  • In a surprisingly sympathetic article about Sergey Aleynikov’s legal travails entitled “Questions Linger in Case of Copied Code,” Reed Albergotti expresses concern about the most recent prosecution in The Wall Street Journal.
  • “Google, Judges Duck Latest Version of Trade Secrets Case,” reports Law360.
  • Looking for a “Broker Update” on trade secret and non-compete disputes in the financial industry? Then check out Rob Radcliff’s post in his Smooth Transitions Blog.
  • “Enforceability of a Noncompete Agreement will Often Depend Upon Context,” advises Jason Shinn for the Michigan Employment Law Advisor Blog.
  • “No, No, No – Your Independent Contractor Cannot Sign a Noncompete. Never. Ever,” exclaims Tiffany Hildreth for Strasburger’s Noncompete Blog.
  • “No Sanctions For Text Message Deletion,” advises Christopher Brif for the IT-Lex Blog.
  • “Trade Secret Suit Against Defense Co. Sent To Arbitration,” reports Law360.
  • “The New Prior User Rights Defense: How Often Will It Be Asserted?” ask Robert A. Pollock and Matthew R. Van Eman for Finnegan’s America Invents Act Blog.
Cybersecurity Posts and Articles:
  • “Why The NSA Leaks Will Lead To More Economic Espionage Against American Companies,” warns John Villasenor for Forbes Tech.
  • “Why Your CEO Is a Security Risk,” cautions Rohyt Belani  for the Harvard Business Review Network Blog.
  • Looking for a concise summary of all the pending federal cybersecurity and trade secrets legislation? Then check out “Pols Gone Wild: Congress Discovers Trade Secret Theft and Cybersecurity are Problems; We Sort Through the Explosion of Legislation,” by Sophie Yu and Gabriel M. Ramsey for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch Blog.
  • “5 Data Breach Risks You Can Prevent,” proclaim Clark Schweers and Jeffrey Hall for Law Technology News.
  • “The Public/Private Cooperation We Need on Cyber Security,” advises Harry D. Raduege, Jr. for the Harvard Business Review Network Blog.
  • “After Profits, Defense Contractor Faces the Pitfalls of Cybersecurity,” reports The New York Times.
Computer Fraud & Abuse Act Articles, Cases and Posts:
  • “Minnesota Federal Court Dismisses Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Claim Based on Departing Employee’s Downloading of Customer List,” reports Erik von Zeipel for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • For more on the recent decision denying a motion to dismiss the CFAA claim in the AMD trade secret case, see Erik Ostroff’s post “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Applied Narrowly In AMD Case,” for his Protecting Trade Secrets Blog.
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 Articles:
  • “Can Business Relationships Be Trade Secrets? VA Federal Court Says No” advises Eric Ostroff in his Protecting Trade Secrets Blog. In Cablecom Tax Services v. Shenandoah Telecomms. Co., U.S. District Court Judge Michael Urbanski dismissed a tax consultant’s trade secrets claim against its telecommunications customers, reasoning that the consultant’s alleged relationships with tax authorities, a  tax-law “accounting system,” and its ability to negotiate property tax discounts did not qualify as protectable trade secrets under Virginia’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Scott A. Schaefers also has a post on this case for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • And while we are on the topic of trade secrets cases in Virginia, are you looking for a primer on the epic DuPont v. Kolon case? Then check out the superb post analyzing DuPont’s case by Eulonda Skyles and Michael Spillner for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch Blog.
  • Speaking of DuPont and Kolon, “Kolon Succeeds in Getting Its Trade Secret Theft Arraignment Postponed,” advises Todd Sullivan in Sullivan’s Trade Secrets Blog.
  • “Ex-Advanced Micro Workers Can’t Shake Trade Secrets Suit,” reports Law360 and Bloomberg. For more on the AMD trade secrets dispute, see my post from last month on the recent preliminary injunction restraining those same employees from misappropriating AMD’s trade secrets.
  • “Newscaster tripped up by Non-Compete,” reports Dan Frith for Frith & Ellerman’s Virginia Non-Compete Law Blog.
  • “It’s Not Just for Patents Anymore: Using the ITC to Combat Theft of Trade Secrets,” recommends Mark Memelstein and Misasha C. Suzuki for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch Blog.
  • “Hey, I Thought We Had An Agreement: California Appellate Court Allows Party To Seek Attorney’s Fees In Trade Secret Case,” exclaims Paul Henson in a guest post for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • Jason Cornell of Fox Rothschild has another post comparing different state’s non-compete laws, this time “A Comparison Of Illinois And Florida Law Governing Non-Compete Agreements,” for Mondaq.
  • “UK Supreme Court Rules on Case Involving Misuse of Trade Secrets by Former Employee,” reports Ezra Steinhardt for Covington’s Inside TechMedia Blog.
  • Jay Yurkiw of Porter Wright continues to churn out fine posts on e-discovery issues relevant to trade secret and non-compete disputes. For his latest, see “Court Relies on Proportionality to Deny Inspection of Defendant’s Computers, Cell Phones and Email Accounts” for Porter Wright’s Technology Law Source Blog.
  • “Deter Cyber Theft Act Would Augment Federal Policy Against Industrial Espionage,” advises Kenneth Vanko in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Agreements Blog.
  • Interested in the interplay between “Liquidated Damages and Non-Competes”? Then check out Devin C. Dolive’s post for Burr & Forman’s Non-Compete Trade Secrets Law Blog. 
Cybersecurity Posts and Articles:
  • “Outside Law Firm Cybersecurity Under Scrutiny,” advises Catherine Dunn for Corporate Counsel.
  • “China’s Cyber Stonewall: Beijing won’t stop until it pays a price for its Internet thievery,” thunders The Wall Street Journal.
  • “How Vulnerable is Your Company to a Cyber Breach?” ask Clark Schweers and Jeffrey Hall for Corporate Counsel.
  • “What If China Hacks the NSA’s Massive Data Trove?” ponders Conor Freidersdorf for The Atlantic.
  • “Could Overreaction to Cybersecurity Threats Hurt Transparency at Home?” worries David S. Levine for Slate.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Posts and Cases:
  • In an initial skirmish that will inevitably lead to a lawsuit against the prosecutors in the Aaron Swartz CFAA case, “Judge Rejects Aaron Swartz’s Estate’s Request to Release Names of Individuals Involved in his Prosecution,” reports Hayes Hunt in the From the Sidebar Blog.

06122013One of the issues that divides many states is whether a covenant not to compete that is offered after the start of employment is enforceable.  Most states (such as Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio) recognize that mere continued employment is sufficient consideration to support a non-compete that is signed after an employee begins working for his or her employer. 

However, a sizable minority of states (such as North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas) generally refuse to enforce a non-compete that is presented after an employee begins work. In those states, continued employment is considered insufficient consideration as a matter of law and those states require that any non-compete signed after an employee has begun working must be supported by new and independent consideration such as a genuine promotion, stock options or some other tangible exchange.

Not surprisingly, things can get tricky in jurisdictions that do not recognize “subsequent” non-competes when it is unclear when the employee actually begins working or where there is a potential number of employment agreements.  On May 31, 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was forced to address this situation and determine whether a signed offer letter that did not mention a non-compete was the parties’ agreement or whether a subsequent employment agreement with a restrictive covenant signed on the employee’s first day of work constituted the actual employment contract.

In Pulse Technologies, Inc. v. Notaro, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the signed offer letter that did not mention a non-compete was not a binding  employment contract between the parties.  Instead, the Supreme Court held that the non-compete included in the formal employment agreement signed on the employee’s first day was part of the actual contract between the employer and employee, and that the non-compete was therefore supported by consideration (new employment) and enforceable. (A copy of the opinion can be found as a PDF below; a special thanks to Mark Grace of Cohen & Grace for giving me an update on the opinion).

Background Facts:  In 2005, Pulse Technologies extended an offer of employment to Peter Notaro in a letter that described the new position, responsibilities, location, base salary, benefits, effective date and confidentiality requirements. The offer letter stated “You will be asked to sign our employment/confidentiality agreement” and that “[w]e will not be able to employ you if you fail to do so.”  Finally, the offer letter stated “the first day of employment you will be required to sign an Employment Agreement with definitive terms and conditions outlining the offer terms and conditions contained herein.” The letter did not mention any covenant not to compete.

Notaro signed the offer letter as instructed and on the first day of his employment with Pulse Technologies, he was asked to sign an employment agreement that contained a covenant not to compete. Notaro read, understood and signed the employment agreement and never objected or questioned the non-compete.

In 2010, Notaro resigned from Pulse Technologies to join a competitor, MK Precision, LLC.  Pulse Technologies sued to enforce the non-compete and secured a preliminary injunction enforcing it. However, on appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the preliminary injunction, reasoning that because the offer letter did not mention the non-compete, the subsequent non-compete was not supported by adequate consideration.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Reasoning: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, reversed the Appellate Court’s holding and reinstituted the non-compete. The Supreme Court held that the offer letter was simply part of the hiring process and did not constitute the actual employment contract between Notaro and Pulse Technologies. 

Focusing on the language and circumstances surrounding the offer letter, the Supreme Court concluded that the offer letter was simply intended to summarize a number of the key terms of the proposed employment relationship and that it was executed with “a view toward executing a binding contract in the future.” The Supreme Court emphasized that the offer letter’s language made clear that execution of an actual employment agreement would be required for any employment relationship and that as a result, the restrictive covenant was ancillary (or a essentially a condition) of the proposed employment relationship. Consequently, the subsequent non-compete was enforceable because it was supported by consideration — the offer and acceptance of employment at the start of the parties’ relationship.

The Takeaway:  If you are an employer in a state that does not recognize continued employment as sufficient consideration for a non-compete, this is an important decision. To its credit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not elevate form over substance and instead took a hard look at the language and the circumstances of the offer letter and properly recognized that it was not the actual employment agreement. This decision should provide comfort to employers who do not expect that an offer letter will summarize each and every term of the prospective employment.

However, on a practical level, the most effective step that an employer can take to avoid this situation is to be open from the beginning about its expectation that a new employee will have to sign a restrictive covenant. It is always preferable to explain to a prospective employee that a restrictive covenant will be part of any employment package. Not only will that approach ensure that an employer has conformed with the law in jurisdictions such as North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas, but it will reduce the potential for confusion, bitterness or litigation in the future.

Pulse Technologies v. Notaro.pdf (51.34 kb)

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 Articles:
  • In yet another non-compete case involving a physician, an Illinois appellate court has affirmed a trial court’s rejection of a covenant not to compete because the employer, a medical clinic, lacked a protectible interest in the patient base at issue. Jeff Glass reports on the case, Gastroenterology Consultants of the North Shore, S.C. v. Meiselman, M.D., et al., for SmithAmundsen’s Labor and Employment Law Update. According to Jeff, the following facts caused the court to side with the doctor: prior to forming the corporation, he practiced for a decade in the area; after forming the clinic, he continued treating these patients and personally billed them, as opposed to the clinic; the clinic did not help him with advertising or marketing; and finally, his compensation depended on his independent practice.
  • “U.S., China Aim To Curb IP Theft Standoff With Talks” reports Law360.
  • Looking to protect your trade secrets under Chinese law? Then consult “Chinese Translation: Protecting Trade Secrets in China Requires Knowing Complex Layers of Laws and Practices,” by Mimiao Hu, Shelley Zang and Xiang Wang for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch.
  • “Former engineer at Bergen County based company charged with stealing trade secrets,” reports NewJersey.com. Ketankumar “Ketan” Maniar planned to relocate to India with trade secrets stolen from his employer, Becton, Dickinson and Company, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman said.
  • For companies looking for a trade secrets lawyer, Kenneth Vanko has some fine practical advice, “The Employee’s First Client Meeting,” in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Agreements Blog.
  • In the sad but true column, “(Practically) No Comment: White House Plea for Public Input on Trade Secret Theft Draws 13 Responses advise L. Kieran Kieckhefer and Warrington Parker for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch Blog. For 2 of the 13 responses, see Peter Torren’s opinion here and my submission here.
  • “New Oklahoma Law Clarifies Enforceability of Non-Solicitation of Employee Covenants” reports Daniel Joshua Salinas for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • Jason Cornell of Fox Rothschild provides “A Comparison Of New York And Florida Law Governing Non-Compete Agreements” for Mondaq.
  • “Can My Employer Enforce A Noncompete When We Get Our Customers Through Bidding?” asks Donna Ballman in her Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home Blog.
  • A New York Federal “Court Finds Potential Liability For Sending Cease And Desist Letter reports Lauri Rasnick for Epstein Becker’s Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog. For more on the risks of a claim of intentional interference from a cease and desist letter, see my post here.
  • “District of Connecticut Addresses Trade Secret Act Preemption advises Eric Ostroff in his Protecting Trade Secrets Blog.
  • “Why Non-Competes are bad for the economy,” advises Laura Ellerman for Frith & Ellerman’s Virginia Non-Compete Law Blog.
  • “Public Policy Trumps Non-Compete in North Carolina,” reports Eric Welsh for Parker Poe’s Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition Reporter Blog.
  • “Medical Device Manufacturer Bound By The Restrictive Covenants It Implemented,” reports Zachary Jackson for Epstein Becker’s Trade Secrets & Non-Compete Blog.
Cybersecurity Posts and Articles:
  • In an interesting Op-Ed piece for The New York Times entitled “Elizabethan Cyberwar,” Jordan Chandler Hersch and Sam Adelsberg liken the current cyber conflict between China and the U.S. to the battle for the seas between Elizabethan England and Spain, arguing that China is sponsoring cyber-pirates to level the playing field with the U.S.
  • “Facebook Urges Cooperation To Tackle Mobile Security Risks,” reports Law360.
  • “Mobile Device Forensics – Are You in the Know?” asks James Whitehead in a guest post for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • The IP Commission’s adoption of the “hack back” defense continues to stir controversy. GCN’s William Jackson asks “The hack-back vs. the rule of law: Who wins?” and Lisa Shuchman expresses concern in “IP Theft Report Offers Over-the-Top Solutions” for Corporate Counsel.
  • And The Wall Street Journal’s Christopher Matthews chimes in as well, in “Support Grows to Let Cybertheft Victims ‘Hack Back.'”
  • Public Interest “Group Backs FTC Authority In Wyndham Data Breach Case,” reports Law360.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Posts and Cases:
  • “Recent Alleged Cyberattack By Ex-Employee Demonstrates Importance of Employer Diligence On Protecting Network Passwords,” advises Robert Milligan for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.

Kenneth Vanko, Russell Beck and I have completed our tenth Fairly Competing Podcast, “Trade Secrets, Back to Basics Part 1.”

In Episode 10, Russell, Ken and I discuss particular types of trade secrets, from those commonly recognized to those that are more difficult to define and uphold in court. We also compare and contrast trade secrets with other forms of intellectual property, discuss the benefits of conducting a trade secrets audit, and talk about the differences between trade secrets and lesser protected confidential information.

You can listen to the podcast by going to the Fairly Competing website or clicking the link below. Or you can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes.  (As always, we’d appreciate your feedback).
 
“Part 2 of Trade Secrets, Back to Basics” Podcast will focus on security measures and will be available soon to listeners.

 
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:
 
Cybersecurity Posts and Articles: 
  • Last week’s report from the privately-funded IP Commission has triggered a lot of commentary on the issue of China, cybersecurity, and the international misappropriation of trade secrets. The Economist has chimed in, “Fighting China’s hackers: Is it time to retaliate against cyber-thieves?,” The New York Times has offered an Op-Ed “Preventing a U.S.-China Cyberwar,” as has Gerry Smith for The Huffington Post, “‘Hacking Back’ Could Deter Chinese Cyberattacks, Report Says.” Lisa Kilday also has a post for The IP Watchdog, as does Sophie Yu for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch Blog.
  • For a contrarian view of the report and its authors, see TechDirt’s article, “Fear Mongering Report Suggests ‘IP Theft From China’ One Of The Biggest Problems America Faces.”
  • “A primer on the keys to a complete cybersecurity incident response plan: Inside counsel that understand cybersecurity become defenders of their companies,” advises Daniel Lim for Inside Counsel.
  • “Hackers Find China Is Land of Opportunity,” reports Edward Wong for The New York Times.
  • “FTC Fires Back In Cybersecurity Case,” reports Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog.
  • “FTC Announces Information about Upcoming Mobile Security Forum,” advises Mike Nonanka for Covington’s Inside Privacy Blog.
  • Rob Radcliff provides his take on BYOD policies in his Smooth Transitions Blog.
  • “Employers Must Obtain Employee Consent For BYOD Programs,” recommends Yaron Dori and Jeff Kosseff of Covington & Burling LLP for Law360.
Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Cases, Posts and Articles
  • “Kolon Asks 4th Circ. To Ax $920M DuPont Trade Secrets Award” reports Law360.  In a summary of the oral arguments before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Scott Flaherty reports that Kolon focused on Judge Robert Payne’s denial of its motion to recuse himself because of his former firm’s involvement in a patent dispute for DuPont and on what Kolon believed was DuPont’s failure to provide proof on a trade secret by trade secret basis.
  • “Illinois Appellate Court Partially Reverses Broad Non-Compete Injunction Against Physicians,” reports Molly Joyce for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • “Customer Lists as Trade Secrets: What Protections Are Sufficient?” asks Eric Ostroff in his Protecting Trade Secrets Blog.
  • Brian Bialas suspects that the recent AMD v. Feldstein decision by the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts may have extended the inevitable disclosure doctrine in Massachusetts. In his post for Foley & Hoag’s Massachusetts Noncompete Law Blog, Brian notes the fact that Judge Hillman entered an injunction despite the defendants’ protestations that they had already turned over all confidential information to a third-party neutral after the lawsuit was commenced, reasoning that they, “must all remember large amounts of confidential AMD information that they learned during their employment.”  (For more on the decision, see my take here).
  • A case out of New York’s Fourth Appellate Department suggests that coupling a grant of stock options with a non-compete can be a messy affair if not done right, advises Jonathan Pollard in a recent post for the non-compete blog.
  • “Former Outback Steakhouse Employee Not Necessarily ‘Down Under’ For Allegedly Breaching Fiduciary Duty” advises Amy Dehnel for Berman Fink & Van Horn’s Georgia Non-Compete & Trade Secret News Blog.
  • In “Pennsylvania Appellate Court Orders Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Bad-Faith Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims,” Scott Schaeffers examines the recent Kraft v. Downey case for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • Rob Radcliff provides his take on BYOD policies in his Smooth Transistions Blog.
  • “Employers Must Obtain Employee Consent For BYOD Programs,” recommends Yaron Dori and Jeff Kosseff, Covington & Burling LLP for Law360.
  • “Chinese Trade Secret Theft Hits Universities,” reports Press Millen for Womble Carlyle’s Trade Secrets Blog.
  • “Non-Compete Agreements Aren’t for Everyone: The Necessity of Proving a ‘Legitimate Business Interest,’” advises Betsy Lensan Cook of Womble Carlyle for National Law Review.
  • “Exercise Gym Instructor Enjoined By Non-Compete Agreement,” reports David Poppick for Epstein Becker’s Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Posts and Cases:
  • “Password Sharing and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Revisited,” considers Kenneth Vanko in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Agreements Blog.

Kenneth Vanko, Russell Beck and I have completed our ninth Fairly Competing Podcast, “The Conviction of David Nosal Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.” 

In Episode 9, Russell, Ken and I discuss Nosal’s conviction under the remaining Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) counts that survived the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in 2012. In particular, we debate whether the government’s theory of unauthorized access via password sharing falls within the terms of the CFAA. We also predict how the Ninth Circuit may rule after Nosal appeals his conviction.

You can listen to the podcast by going to the Fairly Competing website or clicking the link below. Or you can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes. (As always, we’d appreciate your feedback).

For more on the Nosal case, see our previous posts here, here and here.

Listen to this episode.

05242013A blue-ribbon panel issued a report on Wednesday focusing on trade secret theft by China and urging a number of executive and legislative reforms, including enactment of a federal trade secrets statute and providing American companies with some limited right to “hack back” against those that launch cyberattacks against them.  The report has already generated a fair amount of media coverage and is sure to spark further debate on what to do about international trade secret theft and cyberattacks (for more on the report, see this Op-Ed piece in The Washington Post, as well as these articles in Forbes, the BBC and PCWorld). 

The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property by The National Bureau of Asian Research (that’s a mouthful) assembled the report.  The panel that authored the report includes high profile figures such as the former Ambassador to China (Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.), the former Chairman and CEO of Intel Corporation (Craig R. Barrett), the former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command (Retired Admiral Dennis C. Blair), and former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton from Washington state.

The Reasons for the Report:  For those that have been following these issues, the report relies on many of the statistics and developments that are by now considered to be conventional wisdom or accepted as true:  $300 billion estimated annual losses due to foreign trade secret and cybertheft, drag on U.S. GDP growth, American job losses, and corrosion of the incentives to innovate, among others.

However, unlike other reports and commissions, this one unambiguously singles out China “as the world’s largest source of IP theft” and quotes estimates that “China’s share of international IP theft” is “roughly 70%.”  In this respect, the Commission differs substantially from other high profile reports — most notably, the Obama Administration’s Trade Secrets Initiative launched last February, which elected not to single out China (although that initiative did detail incident after incident of theft involving a China connection).

The report also addresses what it believes to be the root causes of this serious international problem, as well as the role of the Chinese government in allowing or promoting it.  It posits that “much of this theft stems from the undirected, uncoordinated actions of Chinese citizens and entities who see within a permissive domestic legal environment an opportunity to advance with their own commercial interests.  With rare penalties for offenders and large profits to be gained, Chinese businesses thrive on stolen technology.”  However, the report does note that role of the Chinese government in some of these efforts, citing the recent Verizon risk report that found that “‘state-affiliated actors’ accounted for 19% of the 621 successful ‘breaches’ in the 47,000 attacks reported.”

The Commission’s Notable Recommendations:  A number of short-term solutions are advocated to reorganize and finetune the federal executive branch’s focus and responsibility.  However, it is the “medium-term solutions” proposal that I thought was the most noteworthy, which is the section that advocates for legislative and legal reforms.

In my view, the most important legislative reform proposed in the report is the very first one — the call for an amendment to the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) to provide for a private right of action to allow companies and businesses to sue for the theft of their trade secrets (readers of this blog already know that I have supported this effort).  The report does not advocate a particular bill (such as the pending Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act) or particular remedy.  Rather, the report focuses on the practical reasons that require that legislation:  over-burdened federal prosecutors who lack the resources to pursue these actions under the EEA and the jurisdictional and evidentiary limitations of state court actions that may frustrate the ability of companies to protect their trade secrets overseas.

The Commission also recommends that the EEA be amended so that the Federal Circuit would serve as the Federal Court of Appeals for all federal trade secret actions, “since it serves as the appellate court for nearly all IP-related cases and thus has a high degree of competency on IP issues.”  This is a good suggestion and would provide uniformity and clarity on any new statute as well as for future prosecutions under the EEA.

Finally, the Commission advocates two noteworthy but controversial cyber proposals.  It supports the present Cyber Intelligence Sharing Protection Act (CISPA) that has passed the House of Representatives but faces opposition within the Senate and by the Obama Administration on privacy grounds.

The Commission also supports giving American companies the right to a some limited form of a “hack back” against foreign cyberattacks (for a fine and brief analysis of this provision, see the recent post of Steptoe’s Stewart Baker for The Volokh Conspiracy).  This would likely require an amendment to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which as presently drafted, would expose American companies to civil claims or prosecution under the CFAA.  (For a debate on the merits of allowing a hack back amendment, see the exchange between Stewart Baker (in favor) and Professor Orin Kerr (against) in The Volokh Conspiracy).

For those with the time, I would recommend reading the report which has a host of other comprehensive proposals that should be strongly and seriously considered by the Administration and Congress.

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 Articles:
  • A Pennsylvania Court of Appeals has rejected the two-prong test (objective test of speciousness and subjective test for bad faith) used by many federal courts for an award of attorneys fees for a bad faith trade secrets action under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act reports Law360. In Kraft v. Downey, the Superior Court reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a claim for attorneys fees by the defendants, even though the plaintiffs prevailed at trial on other claims. (A hat tip to Mark Grace for forwarding the opinion to me).
  • Ericsonn and Airvana have reached an agreement in principle to settle their trade secrets case, Bloomberg is reporting. Airvana had secured a preliminary injunction in New York Supreme Court that had threatened to disrupt a $3 billion opportunity with Sprint and had resulted in Airvana’s claim that Ericsonn had violated the injunction. For more on the case and injunction, see my March post here.
  • For the latest involving the prosecution of Walter Liew for the alleged theft of DuPont’s titanium dioxide trade secrets, see “Feds Say Execs Can’t Ax DuPont Trade Secrets Charges,” as reported by Law360.
  • “Using Computer Forensics to Investigate IP Theft,” advise Sid Venkatasen and Elizabeth McBride for Law Technology News.
  • “Kentucky Court Finds No Insurance Coverage for Trade-Secrets Claim,” reports Eric Ostroff in his Trade Secrets Law Blog.
  • “Massachusetts Federal Court Takes Jurisdiction Over ‘One-Man’ Georgia Corporation Whose Agent Allegedly Stole Trade Secrets in Massachusetts,” reports Brian Bialas for Foley & Hoag’s Massachusetts Noncompete Law Blog.
  • “Recapping the Latest Blue Belt Tech. Non-Compete Dispute (This Time vs. Stryker),” summarizes Jonathan Pollard for the non-compete blog.
  • “Act On Clarifying Ownership of Work-Related Social Media Accounts Before You Become ‘Dinner,'” recommends Daniel Schwartz in his Connecticut Employment Law Blog.
  • If you are into podcasts, check out, “The Administration is Focused on Preventing Trade Secrets Misappropriation. Your Business Should Be, Too,” by Victoria Cundiff of Paul Hastings.
  • “Proposed Non-Compete Legislation in Connecticut Follows Legislative Trend” advises Kenneth Vanko in his Legal Developments in Non-Competition Blog.
  • If you are interested in more on the $44 million verdict in the Wellogix/Accenture dispute, check out “I Thought We Broke Up Years Ago! Why You Should “Throw Out” Trade Secrets As Soon As A Business Relationship Ends” by Matthew Kugazaki and Valerie Goo for Orrick’s Trade Secrets Watch and Eric Ostroff’s “A Cautionary Tale About Sharing Trade Secrets With Consultants — Fifth Circuit Affirms $44 Million Verdict.”
Cybersecurity Posts and Articles:
  • “California law would require breach notice if online account information is stolen,” reports Dan Kaplan for SC Magazine.
  • “Cyber Compliance: Hiring a Cybersecurity IT Firm for Rookies,” advises Christopher Matthews for The Wall Street Journal’s Risk & Compliance Reporter.
  • “Why CISPA is a global problem,” warns TechnoLlama.
  • “Data Breach – Your Organization Needs a Plan” recommends Nicole Reiman of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP for JDSupra.
  • “Corporate Security’s Weak Link: Click-Happy CEOs: Top Bosses, Exempt From Companywide Rules, Are More Likely to Take Cyber-Attackers’ Bait,” reports The Wall Street Journal. For more on Spearphishing (or attacks geared towards senior executives better known as whaling, see my post here).
  • “GSA, DOD Solicit Advice On Revamping Cybersecurity,” advises Kathryn Brenzel for Law360.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Posts and Cases:
  • “Applying Georgia Long-Arm Statute, Eleventh Circuit Finds No Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Activity” in a CFAA dispute, courtesy of Colin Freer for Berman Fink Van Horn’s Georgia Non-Compete and Trade Secret News Blog.