On January 11, 2019, the Supreme Court accepted certiorari to reconcile fractured circuit tests on when the government may withhold information from a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request based on responsive information being confidential or a trade secret. The case has major potential ramifications for the protections given to sensitive information submitted by companies to the government. Continue Reading Supreme Court Grants Cert. to Interpret Meaning of “Confidential” or “Trade Secret” Under FOIA
Please join us for a one-hour CLE webinar on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern / 12:00 p.m. Central / 10:00 a.m. Pacific.
- Significant new federal and state court decisions and legislation on non-compete and other restrictive covenants that may impact their enforcement
- The Defend Trade Secrets Act and tips for navigating the law and an overview of what we know now that it’s been in effect for more than 2 years
- Discussion of recent trade secret misappropriation decisions
- Noteworthy data breaches and criminal prosecutions for trade secret misappropriation, data theft, and computer fraud matters and discussion of lessons learned
- Best practices for updating agreements and policies to adequately protect company assets and trade secrets
Prevention, Crisis Management, and Mitigating Personal Liability
Thursday, January 31, 2019
8:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Breakfast & Registration
8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Program
Seyfarth Shaw LLP New York Office
The New York Times Building
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
There is no cost to attend but registration is required and seating is limited.
This program will provide Boards, C-Suites and General Counsels with best practice strategies for avoiding unauthorized breaches of electronic data; managing them if they occur; and addressing personal liability risks for Boards and executives. The Distinguished Speakers are experienced cyber security experts from Seyfarth Shaw, KPMG, law enforcement, and current directors.
Best Practices for Avoiding and Managing Threats
Cybersecurity experts and industry professionals will share their views on these questions:
- What are your top lessons learned from investigating cyber breach incidents?
- What are the most important considerations when developing an overall incident response plan?
Potential Liability Risk for the Board
Securities litigators will emphasize the importance of having a clear plan and robust escalation processes to respond quickly and effectively when an incident occurs. Critical issues to be discussed include:
- Fiduciary duties and director liability
- Cyber risk landscape and regulatory environment
- Role of information governance in minimizing damages from cyberattacks
- Cyber risk assessment and implementation of defensive technology
- Insurance coverage and other risk mitigation strategies
Two hours of New York CLE credits are approved.
If you have any questions, please contact Morgan Coury at firstname.lastname@example.org and reference this event.
A Pennsylvania federal court recently denied Defendant Synchrony Group, LLC’s motion to dismiss a trade secret lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Jazz”) holding that Plaintiff sufficiently stated a trade secret claim. Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Synchrony Grp., LLC, No. 18-602, 2018 WL 6305602 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2018). Continue Reading Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds That Plaintiff’s Trade Secret Misappropriation Allegations Hold Up
A California federal district court recently granted a TRO and preliminary injunction against a general manager who allegedly misappropriated customer information from his previous employer in violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), and his employment agreement. Sun Distributing Company v. Corbett, No. 18-cv-2231, 2018 WL 4951966 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2018).
Sun Distributing is a distribution company that works with major national logistics companies to provide last-mile distribution to residences and businesses in California. Paul Corbett worked as a general manager at Sun Distributing. While employed, Corbett signed an employment agreement in which he agreed to a confidentiality provision stating that he would not use Sun Distributing’s trade secrets, including customer lists, needs, and pricing structures, in order to compete with Sun Distributing after he left the company. Corbett later resigned from Sun Distributing to work for Pacblue, a company that distributes free newspapers and other print media for publishers in California. Continue Reading California Federal District Court Grants TRO and Preliminary Injunction to Protect Trade Secret Customer Lists
As a special feature of our blog—guest postings by experts, clients, and other professionals—please enjoy this blog entry from Donal O’Connell, Managing Director of Chawton Innovation Services Ltd.
The purpose of this short paper is to ‘join the dots’ between a director’s fiduciary duties and especially a person holding dual or multiple directorships and trade secrets. Continue Reading Fiduciary Duties with Respect to Trade Secrets for Dual or Multiple Directors
Throughout 2018, Seyfarth Shaw’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 seven webinars:
- 2017 National Year in Review: What You Need to Know About the Recent Cases/Developments in Trade Secrets, Non-Compete and Computer Fraud Law
- Protecting Confidential Information and Client Relationships in the Financial Services Industry
- The Anatomy of a Trade Secret Audit
- Protecting Trade Secrets from Cyber and Other Threats
- 2018 Massachusetts Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Reform
- Protecting Trade Secrets Abroad and Enforcing Rights Abroad and in the U.S.
- Criminal Trade Secret Theft: What You Need to Know
As a conclusion to this well-received 2018 webinar series, we compiled a list of key takeaway points for each program, which are listed below. For those clients who missed any of the programs in this year’s series, recordings of the webinars are available on the blog, or you may click on the title of each available webinar below for the online recording. Seyfarth Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Compete attorneys are happy to discuss presenting similar presentations to your company for CLE credit. Seyfarth will continue its trade secrets webinar programming in 2019, and we will release the 2019 trade secrets webinar series topics in the coming weeks. Continue Reading 2018 Trade Secrets and Non-Competes Webinar Series Year in Review
As a special feature of our blog—guest postings by experts, clients, and other professionals—please enjoy this blog entry from Gilles Rouvier, founding partner of Lawways.
On July 31st, 2018, France adopted a law on trade secret protection, loi n°2018-670 (hereafter “French Trade Secret Law“). The aim of this French Trade Secret Law is to offer companies protection for their economic and strategic information. This legislation implements the Directive 2016/943/EU on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use, and disclosure, enacted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EU) on June 8th, 2016. Continue Reading New Trade Secrets Law for France
On November 13, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas’s denial of prevailing party attorneys’ fees in a matter of first impression under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”). In short, the Fifth Circuit held that a dismissal without prejudice of a DTSA case does not support an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees. Continue Reading The Limits of “Taking the Lead Early”: A Dismissal Without Prejudice Will Not Support Defend Trade Secrets Act Attorney’s Fees
As we have discussed on this Blog over the past several years, the Protocol for Broker Recruiting (“Protocol”) allows for reciprocal poaching of brokers. More specifically, if a broker leaves one Protocol firm for another Protocol firm, the broker can (a) take certain account information (client names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and account title information) to his/her new firm and (b) solicit the clients he/she serviced at his/her former firm. Naturally then, the Protocol’s requirements conflict with confidentiality and restrictive covenant provisions that are commonly found in broker employment agreements and firm policies. Continue Reading Former Protocol Members Are Stepping Up Their Restrictive Covenant Enforcement