Seyfarth Shaw LLP Attorney To Lead Presentation At California State Bar 35th Annual IP Institute

 Los Angeles partner Robert Milligan will be leading a presentation on "Hot Topics in Trade Secret Law" at the State Bar of California’s 35th Annual Intellectual Property Institute at the Silverado Resort in the Napa Valley on Saturday, October 30, 2010 beginning at 9:35 am.

The Institute is the premier multiday program of the State Bar of California’s Intellectual Property Law Section. The Institute begins on Thursday, October 28, 2010 with Nuts & Bolts sessions on intellectual property law. Friday and Saturday are two days of IP programming covering trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, patents, and cyber law.

The Institute is highlighted by 2010 Vanguard Awards on Friday afternoon. This year's honorees are Brett Alten, Director of Patent Development, Apple, Inc., Ian C. Ballon, Hon. Jeremy D. Fogel, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and Cindy Cohn, Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation.

From the thorny issues of California Uniform Trade Secret Act preemption of common law claims and remedies, through the continued use of employee non-solicitation/non-competition agreements in the post-Edwards era, to the by-now ubiquitous skirmishing over the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s pre-discovery designation of trade secrets under CCP § 2019.210, Robert and the expert panel will guide participants through recent developments in some of the more rapidly evolving areas of trade secret protection and litigation in California on Saturday morning.

Jasmine v. Marvell: Remember To Hang Up Your Telephone After You Leave A Voicemail Message (Oh, And Don't Admit IP Theft Over The Telephone Either)

By Robin Cleary (San Francisco)

Double-checking the locks on your car; re-opening the door on the public mail box after mailing a letter; and re-pressing the receiver button on your speakerphone after finishing a conference call—all extra precautions to preserve privacy, though not always viewed as essential by many. But in Marvell Semiconductor’s case, a little extra diligence by its former executives would have saved it years of headaches and legal expenses. After nine years, the trade secret misappropriation case filed by Jasmine Networks against Marvell is finally underway in Santa Clara Superior Court. Jasmine alleges that Marvell breached a nondisclosure agreement and stole its intellectual property. Jasmine claims lost business worth $80 million to $100 million.

At the heart of Jasmine’s case is a voicemail left in August 2001 by Marvell’s former general counsel for Jasmine’s legal and business affairs director. In the voicemessage, Marvell’s general counsel asked Jasmine’s in-house counsel to return his call. Marvell’s counsel, however, inadvertently failed to hang up the phone, and his subsequent conversation with Marvell’s in-house patent attorney and vice president of engineering was recorded.

According to reports, a transcript prepared by Jasmine quotes Marvell's former general counsel, saying on the voicemessage "Sehat doesn't go to jail. [Marvell vice president of business development] Manuel [Alba] might go to jail." Later, another company officer says: "If we took that IP on the pretense just evaluating it, and put it in our product …"

Jasmine’s trial counsel characterize the voicemail as evidence that Marvell conspired to steal its trade secrets. Marvell counters that the voicemail is simply speculation by Marvell executives about what could happen and that, regardless of how the voicemail is characterized, there was no misappropriation because none of Jasmine’s technology was used in any of Marvell’s product. Although Marvell was initially successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction to prevent the use or disclosure of the voicemail, the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the order on the grounds that the attorney-client privilege had been waived and that the voicemail fell within the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.

Whether the infamous voicemail was a confession or mere speculation now appears to be a question for the trier of fact to decide. We will provide an update to let you know what the jury decides. In the meantime, remember to hang up your phone after you leave a voice message.

Protecting Goodwill: Advice for Franchisors and Franchisees

        Periodically, we see significant trade secrets issues arising in the franchise context. As counsel, we regularly advise clients on these issues. Given the significance of trade secrets in the franchise organization, we thought it might be helpful to get the perspective of the President of Franchise Opportunities Network, W.C. Garth Snider, on the role of trade secrets in the franchise operation. Franchise Opportunities Network, www.franchiseopportunitiesnetwork.com, connects domestic and international franchisors and potential franchisees through Internet-based (online) websites (counting over 20 in number), including www.franchiseopportunities.com and www.smallbusinessopportunity.com. Snider also is a regular author of blog postings related to franchising, such as www.franchisinglaw.com, www.franchiseopportunitiesnetwork.com/category/blog, and http://www.franchiseopportunities.com/blogs/

            The first question that I posed to Snider was how important does he think trade secrets are in the franchise arena. In a nutshell, he responded, “Very.” As he pointed out, a franchise is based on the principle of using a specialized system to sell products. A franchise’s “success is derivative of the ability of the franchisor (1) to protect the method and manner by which it distributes its product and (2) the uniqueness of the product itself. So, to the extent that there is a formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information that it can take advantage of that are not readily accessible to its competitors, that is very valuable.” Snider noted that the heart of any good franchise is its goodwill, and in turn, that goodwill is based on the trade secrets behind the products it takes to market. 

            Typical types of trade secrets found in franchises depend on the type of business, but can vary from Kentucky Fried Chicken’s original recipe or the chemical formula behind a successful carpet cleaning company to business methods and plans for tax preparation companies. And, depending on how well protected the information is, trade secrets in the franchise context can include supplier lists, pricing data, algorithmic formulas for data and software, and customer lists.

            Snider opined that protection for these trade secrets begins first and foremost with the franchise agreement. The agreement should define very clearly what is considered a trade secret or other confidential information and how that information should be handled. He recommends that “nothing be left to chance” when it comes to crafting adequate protections in an agreement. For example, he recommends including language in the agreement that makes it plain that the trade secrets are being licensed and not sold. Moreover, he suggests including a ban on reverse-engineering in the agreement itself, requiring the franchisee to ensure that its personnel receive frequent reminders regarding confidentiality, and that the franchisee require its personnel to execute appropriate confidentiality agreements. Finally, he suggests that repeated reminders be included in operation manuals; education of employees regarding the importance of guarding the secrets can be crucial to preventing negligent disclosure.

            One recommendation that Snider makes is for the franchisor to have a compliance officer who monitors the use of the trade secrets and the proper implementation of restrictions on the use of the trade secret information. Snider suggests that the compliance officer be charged with conducting audits and monitoring reports from franchisees. Indeed, he suggests that the franchisees self-audit and report to the compliance officer as well.   By creating a closed loop on all of the protections in place, the company is more secure and, if something unforeseen happens, also in a good position to protect its trade secrets in litigation. 

            A tricky question that comes up when we talk about trade secrets and franchises is valuation of the franchise based on the trade secrets. Snider did not have a magic formula (trade secret or otherwise) for how best for a franchisee or franchisor to value the trade secrets, but offered a rule of thumb: the more easily replicated the trade secret, the less valuable it is. According to Snider, it is a sliding scale; if the trade secret can be reverse engineered with relatively minimal expenditure of time and resources (while still qualifying as a trade secret), the less value a franchisee may place on it. As an additional layer, value is added by brand recognition. The Kentucky Fried Chicken brand is more valuable than Joe’s Fried Chicken because it is well-known -- even if the chicken is comparable. Customer lists also are difficult to value, but not impossible. The key there is to make sure that the list is protected as a secret and not widely distributed. 

            As domestic franchisors expand abroad, Snider had one firm recommendation - know a local lawyer. “Franchising is its own discipline in every country,” Snider said. “Spend the time and money to get it right the first time.” [Note - protections that may work to protect trade secrets in the United States may not work in some foreign countries, particularly Europe, where employee workplace privacy protections are strong; monitoring of employee activities in workplace such as e-mail and physical surveillance are different.] As for international franchisors moving into the U.S., particularly from the Gulf states, India, and Australia, we agreed that franchisors beginning business here should take all the same steps to protect their trade secrets as a domestic franchisor would. 

            In sum, Snider agreed, franchisors and franchisees have much to be concerned about when it comes to trade secrets and much to protect. Actively monitoring and managing these assets is critical to a successful enterprise.

"Blue Penciling" in Georgia

Many states allow courts to take certain actions to "modify" restrictive covenants in employment agreements.  This issue is a topic of hot debate in Georgia, as the voters will decide on November 2, 2010 whether to allow "blue penciling" in Georgia.  Blue penciling, strictly defined, is the ability of a court to strike, excise, or cull, certain severable portions of an agreement so as to enforce the agreement solely to the extent it is reasonable.  Other states allow (and may require) a court to alter the agreement, rewriting or reforming the agreement to make it enforceable to give effect to the parties' intent. 

Here is a break-down of how states handle "blue penciling" or modification of restrictive covenants.  Of course, this is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice but a general guide. 

As part of its efforts to codify its non-compete law, Georgia is seeking to allow "blue-penciling." The statute defines "modification" as

the limitation of a restrictive covenant to render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was made.  Such term shall include

(A) Severing or removing that part of a restrictive covenant that would otherwise make the entire restrictive covenant unenforceable; and
(B) Enforcing the provisions of a restrictive covenant to the extent the provisions are reasonable.

O.C.G.A. sections 13-8-51(11)-(12).  It does not allow for reformation and it does not allow a court to rewrite the contract.  The National Employment Lawyers Association Georgia Affiliate has published an advertisement that suggests otherwise.  The ad says that "Judges would be required to re-write the covenant as they see fit . . . "  However, in accordance with the definitions of "modification" and "modify,"  "a court may modify a covenant that is otherwise void and unenforceable as long as the modification does not render the covenant more restrictive with regard to the employee than as originally drafted by the parties."  O.C.G.A. section 13-8-53(d) (emphasis added).  The court is not required to do so. 

Amendment One, which is on the ballot in November, only gives the general assembly the ability to empower courts to "limit the duration, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities."  HR 178.  Because "modification" under the statute is limited to severing or narrowing the covenant, and the general assembly would not be given the right to empower courts to reform or re-write restrictive covenants, there should be no legitimate concern about judicial modification in Georgia.  Instead, Georgia would join many other states that employ "blue-penciling."