Trading Secrets : Trade Secrets Lawyers & Attorneys : Seyfarth Shaw Law Firm : Computer Fraud, Confidentiality Agreements, Corporate Espionage

Trade Secrets 2011 Webinar Series - The Anatomy of a Trade Secret Audit: Is the Data That Drives Your Company Adequately Protected?

May 25, 2011

10:00 am - 11:00 am Pacific
11:00 am - 12:00 pm Mountain 
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Central
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm Eastern

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

With the economy recovering in some sectors, the risk of trade secret theft to businesses has increased with greater employee mobility and the incumbent pressures on production and sales, together with the alarming frequency of targeted data theft attacks and the explosion of social media and cloud computing. Companies cannot simply react to these real business risks to their data once the data is compromised but should employ a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to the protection of their trade secrets and confidential information.
 
It is not uncommon for companies to find themselves in situations where important assets are overlooked or taken for granted. Yet, those same assets can be lost or compromised in a moment through what is often benign neglect. Authoritative sources estimate that companies lose hundreds of billions of dollars as a result of trade secret theft. At the same time, companies sometimes find themselves, through poor controls, exposed when they inadvertently obtain others’ trade secrets. Recent jury verdicts across the nation demonstrate the risk is real. Moreover, once the trade secret is lost, it is lost forever along with the value the company derives from the information.
 
To address these recurrent issues, Seyfarth Shaw helps clients protect their important assets and effectively manage risk by conducting Trade Secret Audits. Our experience has shown that companies gain tremendous value by taking a proactive, systematic approach to assessing and protecting their trade secret portfolios through a Trade Secret Audit. Please join us for the second webinar of the 2011 series which focuses on Trade Secret Audits.

Topics will include:

• Identifying trade secrets and secrecy protections
• Effective secrecy protections, including employment and non-compete agreements.
• Effective hiring and termination protocols, including effective exit interviews and termination protocols.
• Employing a comprehensive approach and trade secret protection plan
• Managing and working to protect computer-stored data,including responding to emergency issues related to computer fraud and security breaches
• This informative presentation will include a question and answer portion and checklists.

Our panel consists of attorneys with experience advising clients on issues related to trade secret audits. CLE credit will be available for participants.*

For questions, please contact events@seyfarth.com and reference this event.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Date: Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Time:
9:00 am - 10:00 am Pacific
10:00 am - 11:00 am Mountain 
11:00 am - 12:00 pm Central
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Eastern

The fifth webinar of the 2010 series will focus on non-compete and trade secret considerations from an international perspective. The webinar will involve a discussion of non-compete and trade secret issues in Europe and Asia, including the threats to trade secrets and confidential information in these regions. The similarities and differences in approach among the various jurisdictions will be touched upon and compared to the United States. This webinar will provide valuable insight for companies who compete in the global economy and must navigate the legal landscape in these regions and ensure protection of their trade secrets.

Our team will discuss:

• Overview of non-compete and trade secret law in selected European and Asian countries, including a discussion of the impact of a forum's legal system.
• Drafting considerations for confidential/trade secret protection and non-compete agreements as well as appropriate policies in these regions, along with a discussion of sources of protection other than written agreements and policies.
• Comparison of similarities and differences of non-compete and trade secret law in these regions and the United States.
• Enforcement mechanisms, including arbitration, remedies, as well as forum issues.
• Jurisdictions discussed will include China (including Hong Kong), India, France, Germany, Australia, the UK, Spain, Japan and Taiwan. 

For questions, please contact events@seyfarth.com and reference this event.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mississippi State University v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., No. 2006-CA-02120-SCT, 2008 WL 2927836 (Miss. July 31, 2008).

The Mississippi Supreme Court has reversed a lower court’s order granting a request by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (“PETA”) seeking disclosure of documents from Mississippi State University (“MSU”) regarding its care of research animals. Specifically, PETA had requested that MSU release records relating to research and testing that was funded by Iams, a pet food company. PETA subsequently modified its request to seek only certain animal care protocol review forms prepared by MSU in conjunction with Iams pursuant to a series of agreements specifying that MSU would not disclose Iams’ confidential information and that MSU would maintain its animal care facilities in conformance with the federal Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq., and all other applicable laws and policies.    

Iams sought a court order prohibiting the disclosure of exempt information under the Mississippi Public Records Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 25-61-9 and 79-23-1, on the ground that the information PETA requested constitutes trade secrets. In particular, Iams asserted that the data and information reveals aspects of Iams’ “strategic product development portfolio” that is not generally known by its competitors in the marketplace, including its formulations, improvements, and new product development. After reviewing relevant documents in camera, the trial court, however, concluded that, with the exception of a section entitled “Experimental Design” and certain personal information about the researchers, the protocol forms were not exempt from disclosure because the Act only covers protocols developed by MSU under contract with Iams, which, it found, was not the case here.

However, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed because the unrefuted evidence on the record established that the information in the protocol forms was developed by MSU pursuant to its agreements with Iams; thus, the “plain and unambiguous language” of the Act requires exemption of the substantive portions of the forms. See 2008 WL 2927836, *13-14. In addition, the Court observed that the protocol forms are required by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which also exempts from public disclosure “trade secrets or commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential.” Id. at *14, citing 7 U.S.C. § 2131(a)(6)(B). In closing, the Court noted that “[a]ny disagreements with those directives are best aimed toward the Legislature.” Id.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link