We are pleased to share the release of the Lexology Panoramic: Trade Secrets – USA In-Year Update, a go-to resource for navigating the evolving landscape of trade secret law in the United States.
This guide provides in-depth insights into:
In 2024, Seyfarth’s Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Compete practice group presented a series of dynamic and insightful CLE webinars, addressing pivotal challenges confronting businesses head-on. The breadth of our discussions encompassed a spectrum of critical topics:
To conclude our impactful 2024 webinar series, we’ve carefully compiled key takeaways from each session. If you missed any sessions, recordings are available on our blog or through the provided links. We’re excited to share that Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit is attainable by watching the webinar recordings. For CLE credit inquiries, please email cle@seyfarth.com after viewing the webinar.Continue Reading 2024 Trade Secrets Webinar Series Recap: Key Takeaways and Access to Recordings
We invite you to watch our recent webinar, where Seyfarth Shaw LLP’s trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete attorneys navigated the ever-evolving business landscape, safeguarding trade secrets has become a critical priority for organizations seeking resilience and success.
In this webinar, our trade secret presenters, Justin Beyer, Joshua Salinas, and Dallin Wilson, delved deeper into the intricacies of building a
Continue Reading Webinar Recap! Employee Training Programs: Building a Culture of Confidentiality
Wednesday, March 27, 2024
2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Central
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Mountain
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Pacific
As we navigate the ever-evolving business landscape, safeguarding trade secrets has become a critical priority for organizations seeking resilience and success. In this pursuit, Seyfarth is thrilled
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! Employee Training Programs: Building a Culture of Confidentiality
In the final 2022 webinar, Seyfarth attorneys Kate Perrelli, Dan Hart, and Dallin Wilson discussed new and pending legislation and enforcement issues for non-competes.
As a conclusion to this webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:
Wednesday, December 21, 2022
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Central
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mountain
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Pacific
In the final installment of our 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, our team will focus on new legislation and the enforcement of non-competes. Any company that seeks to use non-compete
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! Overview of Non-Compete Legislation and Enforcement Issues from 2022
The Department of Justice recently announced a revision of its policy concerning charging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (the “CFAA”). Following recent decision from the Supreme Court and appellate courts that seemingly narrow the scope of civil liability under the CFAA, the DOJ’s new policy may likewise limit criminal prosecutions under the law.
As regular readers of this blog are well aware, the CFAA provides that “[w]hoever … intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains … information from any protected computer … shall be punished” by fine or imprisonment.” The DOJ’s announced policy, however, now directs that “good-faith security research” should not be charged. “Good faith security research” means “accessing a computer solely for purposes of good-faith testing, investigation, and/or correction of a security flaw or vulnerability, where such activity is carried out in a manner designed to avoid any harm to individuals or the public, and where the information derived from the activity is used primarily to promote the security or safety of the class of devices, machines, or online services to which the accessed computer belongs, or those who use such devices, machines, or online services.”
Continue Reading DOJ Announces It Will Not Charge CFAA Violations for Good-Faith Security Research
In September 2019, the Ninth Circuit held that hiQ Labs, Inc.’s (“hiQ”) collection and use of information that LinkedIn users shared on their public profiles did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) because the data was publicly available and therefore did not fall within the scope of the CFAA. Following the Ninth Circuit’s order, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Van Buren v. United States, wherein the Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 ruling, that a former Georgia police officer did not “exceed authorized access” within the meaning of the CFAA by accessing a state law enforcement computer database containing license plate information to determine whether an individual was an undercover officer. The Supreme Court concluded that an individual “exceeds authorized access” when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of that computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off-limits to him.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reaffirms that Data Scraping from Public Websites Does Not Violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
A Massachusetts waffle manufacturer, The Burgundian, recently filed a lawsuit alleging that a potential co-venturer, Eastern Standard Provisions, submitted its Liege waffles for inclusion on Oprah Winfrey’s annual “Favorite Things” list without giving credit to Burgundian. Then, after Burgundian refused to sell its secret waffle recipe, Eastern Standard employed a “bait and switch” by selling Liege waffles from a different company while touting Oprah’s endorsement of the Liege waffles made by Burgundian and enjoying the spoils of landing a spot on the coveted list.
Continue Reading One of Our “Favorite Things” Are Lawsuits About Stolen Secret Recipes
In-house attorneys often wear multiple hats when performing work for private companies. Some of their work clearly falls under the provision of legal services, while others can be less clear quasi-business roles. And when those in-house lawyers who perform non-legal work are asked to sign a non-compete agreement in connection with their employment, questions can arise both as to the enforceability of those agreements and whether an attorney violates the rules of professional conduct by signing such an agreement as we have previously discussed.
Continue Reading Another Decision Addressing Non-Competes for In-House Counsel