Imagine if you could manage all of your social media platforms on one app. Believe it or not, there was an app for that (or, at least a website), created by a company named Power Ventures (“Power”). Back in 2008, Power instituted its “Power 100” campaign, which offered its users the chance to win $100 if they invited 100 … Continue Reading
Continuing our tradition of presenting annually our thoughts concerning the top 10 developments/headlines this past year in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law, here—in no particular order—is our listing for 2015 and a few predictions for 2016. Please join us for our first webinar of the New Year on January 29, 2016 discussing these developments/headlines.
1) Enactment of federal … Continue Reading
In Seyfarth’s eighth installment in its series of Trade Secrets Webinars, Seyfarth social media attorneys discussed their recently released Social Media Privacy Legislation Desktop Reference and addressed the relationship between trade secrets, social media, and privacy legislation.
As … Continue Reading
On October 20, 2015, a Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Chief Judge Sidney Thomas and Judges M. Margaret McKeown and Stephen Reinhardt heard oral argument from the U.S. Department of Justice and counsel for David Nosal on Nosal’s criminal conviction arising under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). In 2013, Nosal was found to have violated the CFAA by … Continue Reading
While employee Lehman was employed by Experian and allegedly subject to various employment covenants, he incorporated Thorium, a competitor. After Experian laid him off, he operated Thorium. Experian sued Lehman and Thorium in a Michigan federal court, accusing them of wrongdoing including violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Holding that the CFAA is intended to criminalize hacking … Continue Reading
Milligan: Data theft of valuable company trade secrets … Continue Reading
In United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), the court held that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, prohibits unlawful access to a computer but not unauthorized use of computerized information. Although that holding represents a minority position, two recent opinions — one in a Ninth Circuit criminal case and one … Continue Reading
Generally when one refers to “competitors” in the context of protecting trade secrets, it is in regard to business competitors, not competing sports teams. And usually when the talking heads on sports radio and television are discussing legal issues, they relate to domestic violence or other crimes, concussions, illicit and performance enhancing drugs, or labor disputes (sometimes even … Continue Reading
The parties in a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act case moved for partial summary judgment. Among the issues were whether the plaintiff had incurred the requisite $5,000 in qualifying losses, and whether the complaint was time-barred. The motions were denied, but the court had to do a lot of explaining. Quantlab Technologies Ltd. v. Godlevsky, Case No. 4:09-CV-4039 (S.D.Tex., … Continue Reading
The 2014 Year in Review is a compilation of our significant blog posts from throughout last year and is categorized by specific topics such as: Trade Secrets Legislation; Trade Secrets; Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; Non-Compete & Restrictive Covenants; Legislation; International; and Social Media and Privacy. As demonstrated by specific blog entries, including our Top 10 Developments/Headlines and Trade Secrets, … Continue Reading
As companies face increasing competitive and financial pressures, management is understandably consumed with running the day-to-day operations of the business and working to achieve business objectives and maximize the bottom line. As a result, it is not uncommon for companies to find themselves in situations where important assets are overlooked or taken for granted. … Continue Reading
A worker’s authorized access of an employer’s computer system during the course of his employment, in which he acquired information that he later misused, gives rise to civil liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFFA), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held April 3 (Associated Pump & Supply Co., LLC v. Dupre).… Continue Reading
On April 11th, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and 41-month prison sentence of a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) defendant, holding that he was tried and convicted in an improper venue. U.S. v. Auernheimer, No. 13-1816 (3rd Cir. Apr. 11, 2014). Though we usually do not post on procedural issues like these, we certainly post … Continue Reading
We are pleased to let you know that the webinar “2013 National Year in Review: What You Need to Know About the Recent Cases/Developments in Trade Secrets, Non-Compete and Computer Fraud Law” is now available as a podcast and webinar recording.
In Seyfarth’s first installment of its 2014 Trade Secrets … Continue Reading
The scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, remains unsettled in the First Circuit after two decisions issued just weeks apart adopted differing approaches to the treatment of such claims.
The CFAA prohibits the intentional access of a computer without authorization or exceeding a party’s authorization to obtain information from a protected computer. As … Continue Reading
District courts are divided as to whether there is a private right of action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for persons whose computer service is not interrupted but who nevertheless incur costs (a) responding to a CFAA offense, (b) conducting a damage assessment, or (c) restoring computerized data or programs as they were prior to the offense. … Continue Reading
Seyfarth Shaw is pleased to announce the publication of the Trading Secrets 2013 Year in Review. The 2013 Review is a compilation of our significant blog posts from 2013 and is categorized by specific topics such as: Trade Secrets; Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; Non-Competes and Restrictive Covenants; Legislation; International and Social Media. As the specific blog entries, including … Continue Reading
As part of our annual tradition, we are pleased to present our discussion of the top 10 developments/headlines in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law for 2013. Please join us for our complimentary webinar on March 6, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. P.S.T., where we will discuss them in greater detail. As with all … Continue Reading
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. Central, Michael Wexler, Jim McNairy and Josh Salinas will present Seyfarth’s first installment of its 2014 Trade Secrets Webinar series. They will review noteworthy cases and other legal developments from across the nation this past year in the areas of trade secret and data theft, non-compete enforceability, computer fraud, and the interplay … Continue Reading
Throughout 2013, Seyfarth Shaw LLP’s dedicated Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes Practice Group hosted a series of CLE webinars that addressed significant issues facing clients today in this important and ever changing area of law.
The series consisted of twelve webinars:
On January 8th, after years of litigation and numerous delays, Executive Recruiter David Nosal was sentenced to one year and a day in federal prison for his April 25, 2013 conviction on three counts under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), two counts under the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”), and one count of conspiracy to violate the CFAA and … Continue Reading
On Tuesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:00 p.m. Central, Seyfarth attorneys Michael D. Wexler, Molly M. Joyce and Justin K. Beyer will present the twelfth and final installment in our 2013 Trade Secrets webinar series, focusing on criminal liability for trade secret misappropriation.
The topics they will cover includeTrade secret misappropriation: what it is and how does it happen… Continue Reading
As social media becomes more engrained in our lives, we hear more and more about its use among students. Although some of these uses are perfectly legitimate, others, such as the use of social media for bullying or defamatory purposes, are not. In a recent case in Oregon, Matot v. CH et al, the court addressed the question of … Continue Reading