Photo of Eddy Salcedo

Eddy Salcedo

Subscribe to Eddy Salcedo's Posts
Contact:Read more about Eddy Salcedo
tim-zankert-gm3M-CsuynI-unsplash

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:

  1. 2024 Trade Secrets & Non-Competes Year in Review
  2. Navigating the Intersection of Non-Compete Agreements and Employee Mobility
  3. Employee Training Programs: Building a Culture of Confidentiality
  4. Navigating Legal Minefields: Insights from Seyfarth’s 2024 Commercial Litigation Outlook
  5. Deciphering the FTC’s Non-Compete Ban: Navigating the New Regulatory Terrain and Adequately Protecting Employers’ Interests
  6. Data Protection and Cybersecurity: Safeguarding Trade Secrets in the Digital Age
  7. Unveiling Trade Secrets Breaches: Leveraging Forensic Exams for Robust IP Protection
  8. Enforcement Strategies Beyond Litigation: Leveraging Alternative Dispute Resolution
  9. Trade Secrets Audits: Assessing and Strengthening Your Company’s IP Protection
  10. What Employers Need to Know Regarding Non-Compete Changes in 2024

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

geraldine-ng-dzLsEspOq2I-unsplash

In our recent webinar, “Trade Secrets Audits: Strengthening Your Company’s IP Protection,” Seyfarth’s Intellectual Property Partner, Lauren Leipold, along with Trade Secret Attorneys Eddy Salcedo and James Yu, shared essential strategies for enhancing IP protection in today’s complex landscape. As corporate espionage and data breaches become increasingly prevalent, the session provided valuable insights on effective methods for safeguarding your company’s…

Continue Reading Webinar Recap! Trade Secrets Audits: Strengthening Your Company’s IP Protection
kaffeebart-KrPulSdUetk-unsplash (2)

Tuesday, October 1, 2024
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

For more information and to register, click here.

About the Program

In a world where corporate espionage and data breaches are increasingly common, protecting your company’s intellectual property is more vital…

Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! Trade Secrets Audits: Strengthening Your Company’s IP Protection

WebinarOn Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. Central, Kate Perrelli, Eddy Salcedo and Dawn Mertineit will present the sixth installment in our 2015 Trade Secrets Webinar Series. They will discuss the significant statutory changes to several jurisdictions’ laws regarding trade secrets and restrictive covenants and pending legislation proposed in additional jurisdictions over the past year.  As trade secrets and…
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar: State Specific Non-Compete Oddities Employers Should Be Aware Of

Expanding what until recently had been very limited options for U.S. companies to enforce their rights against Chinese companies misappropriating trade secrets, the Federal Circuit in TianRui Group Co. v. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir., Case No. 2010-1395, held that the International Trade Commission has statutory authority to review and rule on conduct occurring in China in the…

Continue Reading US Companies Have Options Against Chinese Companies For Trade Secret Misappropriation

White Wave International, Inc. filed an action in Florida against Lindsay Lohan, Lorit LLC, a company she has an indirect ownership interest in, and several other defendants arising out of a certain Confidentiality Agreement Between Firms (“CABF”) between White Wave and Lorit. It was alleged by White Wave that the CABF provided Lohan, Lorit and the other defendants with a time-limited opportunity…

Continue Reading “Internet Communications” Alone Insufficient To Invoke Florida Long-Arm Statute Against Lindsay Lohan In Trade Secrets Misappropriation Suit

The ABA Journal reports that a Princeton PhD candidate study has found electronic “redactions” included on PDF documents may not always be effective. Specifically, the study revealed that a computer program was able to scan 1.8 million Pacer filed documents, identify 2,000 documents that contained redactions (in the form of the ubiquitous “black boxes” obscuring the confidential information) and further…
Continue Reading Electronic “Redactions” Not Always Effective: Greater Caution In Dealing With Sensitive Materials In Trade Secret Cases Necessary

Employment Agreement’s forum, venue and personal jurisdiction clause upheld despite argument that the agreement was signed “under extreme pressure” and without sufficient time for counsel to review.  CLP Resources, Inc. v T. Salerno, 2011 WL 1597677 (W.D.Wash.) (April 27, 2011).

Plaintiff CLP Resources, Inc. (“CLP”), a large provider of temporary construction workers, sued a former employee, defendant Salerno…

Continue Reading “Under Pressure” Not Enough To Make Agreement Unenforceable.

On December 13, 2010, Kevin Crow was sentenced to serve thirty-six (36) months in Federal prison, without parole, which prison term was to be followed by 3 years’ supervised release. Mr. Crow was also fined $10,000.00. What was Mr. Crow’s alleged crime? He had been charged with one-count of Theft of Trade Secrets in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1832. Specifically…

Continue Reading Former Employee’s Theft of Trade Secrets Leads to Criminal Charges and Ultimate Federal Prison Sentence.

ING Life Ins. and Annuity Co. v. Gitterman, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3283526 (DNJ August 18, 2010)

Plaintiffs ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (“ILIAC”) and ING Financial Advisors (“IFA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “ING”), sought to enjoin defendants, all of whom were former employees of ING, from soliciting clients to withdraw certain accounts from ING, pending the resolution of…

Continue Reading “Circumstantial” Proof of Solicitation Found Insufficient by District of New Jersey