Please join us for a one-hour CLE webinar on Wednesday, March 20, 2019, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern / 12:00 p.m. Central / 10:00 a.m. Pacific.

On March 20, 2019, at 12:00 p.m. Central Time, in Seyfarth’s second installment of its 2019 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys will focus on trade secret and client relationship considerations in the banking and financial services industry.

Seyfarth attorneys J. Scott Humphrey and Marcus Mintz will address the following topics:

  • Practical steps financial institutions can implement to protect trade secrets and client relationships
  • What to do if your trade secrets are improperly removed or disclosed or if a former employee is violating his/her restrictive covenant agreements
  • How to prosecute a case against a former employee who is a FINRA member
  • The impact of the Protocol for Broker Recruiting on trade secrets and client relationships

*CLE Credit for this webinar has been awarded in the following states: CA, IL, NJ and NY. CLE Credit is pending for GA, TX and VA. Please note that in order to receive full credit for this webinar, the registrant must be present for the entire session.

In a case highly watched by trade secret lawyers and others, Robert O’Rourke, a 30-year salesman for cast iron products manufacturer Dura Bar, went on trial last week in Chicago (Northern District of Illinois) for allegedly stealing Dura trade secrets before leaving to work for a Chinese competitor. According to the government, O’Rourke was a highly respected salesman at Dura until he became disgruntled with Dura management and decided to leave Dura for a Chinese competitor. Over a two year period, O’Rourke met with the Chinese competitor (the identity of the Chinese company has not been disclosed) and eventually accepted employment with the competitor. Before resigning from Dura, O’Rourke downloaded 1,900 files that contained Dura trade secrets and subsequently attempted to board a flight to China with the trade secrets in hand. O’Rourke was stopped at the gate by the FBI and subsequently charged with 13 counts of trade secret theft.

O’Rourke’s defense team acknowledged in opening statements that O’Rourke downloaded the 1,900 files and was in possession of the files at the time of his arrest. The 1,900 files, according to O’Rourke’s attorney, however, were not trade secrets because Dura did not take “reasonable measures” to keep the information confidential. Thus, it appears that this case will be determined by whether Dura took reasonable steps to protect its trade secrets/confidential information. The trial is expected to last about three weeks—we will continue to monitor the trial, so please check back for updates.

The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will host its annual Trade Secret Law Summit at the American Express Company in New York City’s Financial District on March 21-22, 2019.

Seyfarth is a proud sponsor of the Summit, at which partners Erik Weibust (Vice Chair of AIPLA’s Trade Secret Law Committee) will be speaking on Protection of Trade Secrets in the Social Media Era,  and moderating a panel on Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants in the Financial Services Industry, on which Scott Humphrey will be speaking.  Other Seyfarth attendees will include James Yu, Jeremy Cohen, and Dawn Mertineit.

We hope you can join us there.  For more information and to register, please click here.

California, home to more than 40 million people and the 5th largest economy in the world, has passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), its omnibus consumer privacy law. The law creates sweeping new requirements concerning the collection, maintenance, and tracking of information for both employees or customers who are residents of California. Many aspects of the implementation and enforcement are still being finalized by the California Attorney General. However, companies with employees or customers in California need to take stock of the information they are processing that could qualify as “personal information” for California residents, and they need to begin establishing mechanisms for compliance before the end of 2019. Continue Reading The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018: What Businesses Need to Know Now

On December 28, 2018, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the holding by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denying the plaintiff’s, DTC Energy Group, Inc. (“DTC Energy”), request for a preliminary injunction against a collective of defendants: former DTC Energy employees Adam Hirschfeld (“Hirschfeld”) and Joseph Galban (“Galban”) and Ally Consulting, LLC (“Ally Consulting”), Hirschfeld’s new employer and a DTC Energy competitor.  DTC Energy Grp., Inc. v. Hirschfeld, No. 18-1113, 2018 WL 6816903, at *1 (10th Cir. Dec. 28, 2018).  In a majority opinion written by the Honorable Mary Beck Briscoe, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that DTC Energy failed to present evidence in support of a preliminary injunction.  Id., at *5.  In particular, while DTC Energy proffered prior harm as a consequence of Hirschfeld’s past breaches of his employment contract and the individual defendants’ failure to uphold their duty of loyalty, it could show that neither the prior harm established a significant risk of future irreparable harm saddled by DTC Energy nor Hirschfeld currently breached his employment agreement.  Id. Continue Reading 10th Circuit Affirms that Employer Failed to Show How Past Harm Signified Future Irreparable Harm in Support of Preliminary Injunction Request in Trade Secret Battle

Seyfarth Shaw Partner Erik Weibust and Associate Alex Meier published a Law360 article about trade secret protections related to social media. Weibust and Meier discuss risks employers face when employees access social media accounts, as well as some e-discovery considerations for social media. To learn more, check out “Trade Secret Protection and Social Media: A 5-Year Update” from Law360 here.

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019, at 12 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern, Seyfarth Partner and Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Compete Practice Group Co-Chair Robert Milligan is presenting a webinar for myLawCLE, a partner of the Federal Bar Association. The “Latest Developments in Trade Secrets Law and Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreements” webinar covers some of the recent developments in trade secret law and recent legislative and case law trends regarding non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and offers best practices for structuring permissible contracts.

Key topics include:

  • Impact of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act on trade secrets law
  • Overview of key trade secret cases involving preemption, damages, and identification
  • Current Plaintiff and Defense trade strategies in trade secret litigation
  • What are the recent legislative changes and case law decisions affecting restrictive covenants?
  • How can employers structure restrictive covenants to comply with new laws and decisions
  • Emerging areas in restrictive covenants

For more information and to register, click here.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The New Jersey Legislature recently passed Senate Bill 121 affecting claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, which if signed into law, would render any prospective waiver of rights against public policy, including pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements. In addition, non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements involving these  claims would be unenforceable against employees. 

On January 31, 2019, the New Jersey Legislature passed Senate Bill 121, which would prohibit employers from enforcing, among other things, mandatory pre-dispute arbitration and non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements for claims of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.  The bill seemingly does not affect existing waivers or non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”).  Governor Phil Murphy has not commented publicly as to whether he will sign the bill into law.  If signed, the breadth of this law would surpass any similar law in the country.

Continue Reading Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements and Non-Disclosure Provisions on the Chopping Block in New Jersey

The 2018 Trading Secrets Year in Review is a compilation of our significant blog posts from throughout the year and is categorized by specific topics such as: Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Non-Compete & Restrictive Covenants, Legislation, International, and Social Media and Privacy. As demonstrated by our specific blog entries, including our Top 10 Developments and Headlines, 2018 Trade Secrets and Non-Competes Webinar Series Year in Review, and our dedicated page concerning DTSA legislation, our blog authors stay on top of the latest developments in this area of law and provide timely and entertaining posts on significant new cases, legal developments, and legislation.

The 2018 Trading Secrets Year in Review also includes links to the recordings of webinars in the 2018 Trade Secrets Webinar Series. More information on our upcoming 2019 webinars is available in the program listing contained in this Review. Our highly successful blog and webinar series further demonstrate that Seyfarth Shaw’s national Trade Secret, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes Practice Group is one of the country’s preeminent groups dedicated to trade secrets, restrictive covenants, computer fraud, and unfair competition matters.

Clients and friends of the firm can request a digital or printed copy of the 2018 Trading Secrets Year in Review below.

In Seyfarth’s first installment in its 2019 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Michael Wexler, Robert Milligan, and Joshua Salinas reviewed noteworthy cases and legal developments from across the nation over the last year in the area of trade secrets and data theft, non-competes and other restrictive covenants, and computer fraud. Plus, they provided predictions for what to watch for in 2019.

As a conclusion to this well-received webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:

  • The Supreme Court will soon Rule on the meaning of the terms confidential and trade secrets within the meaning of Exemption 4 to FOIA which may have far reaching  implications to trade secret and non-compete practitioners.
  • State legislation across the country, including in Idaho, Utah, Colorado, and Massachusetts, continues to narrow or place further conditions on the scope of enforceable restrictive covenants.
  • Employers with Massachusetts employees should take care to review choice of law, choice of venue and consideration to support their agreements.
  • Employers with California employees should carefully evaluate whether to continue to use post-termination non-solicitation of employee covenants with their employees and contractors and discuss their options with counsel.
  • Company owners should be careful to not draw the attention of state attorney generals and the justice department by entering into agreements with competitors regarding the mobility of employees.