As a special feature of our blog—guest postings by experts, clients, and other professionals—please enjoy this blog entry from Rachel Bailey, a Legal Data Expert for Lex Machina.
You may have previously read Seyfarth Shaw’s excellent analysis of Lex Machina’s Trade Secret Litigation Report. There are some big picture trends in the report that reflect the trade secret litigation landscape in the federal district courts. A common misconception is that Lex Machina is a reports company. While we do create reports using our data, ultimately we are a platform that updates daily with analytics that allow users to make data-driven decisions for litigation strategy, business development, risk assessment, and other uses.
Continue Reading A Deeper Dive into Trade Secret Legal Analytics
Trade secret litigation in California is growing, in both volume and impact. The second-largest plaintiffs’ verdict in 2019 was $845 million, as reported by the Daily Journal, which was awarded to ASML, a Dutch semiconductor chip processing software company, in its case against XTAL, a company founded by two ex-employees of the plaintiff’s subsidiary in Santa Clara who allegedly worked in secret for XTAL using stolen trade secrets to get a head start in development and siphon off a major customer contract (ASML US Inc. v. XTAL Inc.). Another large verdict was a $66 million jury award, including a worldwide injunction, given to a San Jose LED manufacturer that sued a company for allegedly poaching its top scientist so that it could transfer its technology to China (Lumileds LLC v. Elec-Tech International Co. Ltd.). In these types of cases, plaintiffs have the advantage of being able to craft a compelling narrative of theft—most commonly, former employees surreptitiously appropriating the plaintiff company’s trade secrets for their own benefit in a rival venture—and to overcome employees’ general freedom to switch employers under California law, which voids almost all non-compete agreements (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 16600) and does not recognize the doctrine of inevitable disclosure (Schlage Lock Company v. Whyte, 101 Cal.App.4th 1443 (2002)). Moreover, trade secrets do not expire automatically; they allow broad protection without disclosure, unlike copyrights and patents.
For decades, companies have turned to federal courts to protect valuable business assets, such as trade secrets. Legal action has expanded over the years and recent trends have set the foundation for a continuing surge in federal trade secret litigation.
One of the key pieces of legislation related to trade secrets in Russia is the Federal Law of July 29, 2004 on Commercial Secrecy. This was passed by the State Duma on July 9, 2004, and endorsed by the Federation Council on July 15, 2004.
Cost Management
Introduction
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.
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., and David Cohen. 
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.