In Seyfarth’s seventh installment of the 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth partners Jeremy Cohen and Kevin Mahoney focused on trade secret and client relationship considerations in the banking and financial services industry.
As a conclusion to this webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:
Wednesday, November 16, 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 seventh installment of the 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys will focus on trade secret and client relationship considerations in the banking and financial services industry.
Seyfarth
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! Protecting Confidential Information and Client Relationships in the Financial Services Industry
We’ve written previously about Washington, DC’s non-compete bill scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2022. While DC Council has pulled back from enactment before to make last-minute revisions to the legislation—most notably in 2021 after the initially-passed bill would have barred non-competes entirely—there appear to be no such changes this time. The currently-enacted bill stands to take effect this
Continue Reading Last Call: DC Non-Compete Bill to Take Effect on October 1
On August 10, 2022, Colorado’s new statute further restricting non-competition and non-solicitation provisions becomes effective. The new law, which passed earlier this year, continues Colorado’s trend toward increased scrutiny of post-employment restrictions and adds Colorado to the growing list of states that restrict the use of out-of-state choice of law and forum provisions in agreements that contain such restrictions.
Continue Reading Colorado Poised to Further Restrict Post-Employment Restrictions
The ongoing saga of Washington, DC’s expansive non-compete bill appears to be nearing its end, as the DC Council recently scaled back the originally passed “D.C. Ban on Non-Compete Act of 2020.” While the amended law still imposes significant restrictions on non-compete agreements for employees living or working primarily in DC, the most recent revisions are a step away from the near-total ban on non-competes that the Council originally passed. The new provisions go into effect on October 1, 2022, barring an unlikely veto from Congress or further revisions from the DC Council.
Continue Reading Washington, DC’s Non-Compete Bill Revised Again
On April 13, 2020, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition released a joint statement and press release regarding “competition in labor markets” and potential agency actions in the face of the COVID-19 crisis. While the agencies’ joint statement appears to be focused on collusion between employers entering into horizontal “no-hire” or “no-poach” agreements, employers in certain industries affected by the crisis should also exercise reasonable care in enforcing vertical restrictive covenants, including non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.
Continue Reading The DOJ and FTC Issue Joint Statement on Competition in Labor Markets in Light of COVID-19: What Effect, If Any, Does This Have on Non-Competes?
The Council of the District of Columbia is considering a new bill that would ban the use of non-compete restrictions for workers below certain income thresholds—and impose stiff penalties upon employers who include such restrictions in their agreements. Introduced on October 8, 2019, the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2019 (“the Bill”) places D.C. in line to join a growing number of states where non-compete restrictions upon low-income—and, in some cases, relatively high-income—employees are unenforceable.
The Bill would ban the use of non-compete agreements for employees who work in D.C. and who earn up to three times the D.C. minimum wage: $87,654 annually under current law. The Bill would ban such restrictions not just in written agreements, but also in an employer’s “workplace policy” whether in writing (i.e., through an employee handbook) or as a matter of the employer’s practice. Not only would such restrictions be void as a matter of law, but any employer who had such restrictions in place, regardless of whether or not the employer enforced them, would be separately liable to each affected employee in an amount “not less than $500 and not greater than $1,000.” Employers who attempt to enforce non-compete restrictions that fall below the Bill’s income threshold would be liable to affected employees in an amount “not less than $1,500.” Finally, employers who retaliate against employees for either (1) alleged violations of non-compete restrictions that would be unenforceable under the Bill or (2) inquiring about or informing an employer that the employer’s non-compete restrictions may be unenforceable under the Bill, would be liable to each such employee in an amount “not less than $1,000 and not more than $2,000.” Beyond liability to affected employees, the Bill would also empower the Mayor of the District of Columbia to impose fines for violations of the Bill in an amount up to $500, except for retaliatory conduct for which the fine would be at least $1,000.
Continue Reading D.C. Poised to Ban Non-Competes Below Income Threshold
On June 28, 2019, Governor Mills signed LD 733, An Act To Promote Keeping Workers in Maine, into law. The Act places limits on non-compete agreements and bans restrictive employment agreements.
The Act defines a non-compete agreement as one restricting the employee “from working in the same or similar profession or in a specified geographic area for a certain period of time following termination of employment.”
Continue Reading Maine Governor Restricts Restrictive Covenants
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a defendant accused of conspiring to misappropriate its competitor’s trade secrets. By a 4-3 decision in North Highland Inc. v. Jefferson Machine & Tool Inc., 2017 WI 75 (July 6, 2017), the Court found that plaintiff North Highland, Inc. (“North Highland”) had failed to present sufficient evidence of misappropriation or conspiracy to proceed beyond the summary judgment stage, prompting a notably sharp exchange with dissenting Chief Justice Patience D. Roggensack and a second dissent by two other justices.
Highland is a Wisconsin-based manufacturer of industrial products. One of the companies it distributed its products to was Bay Plastics, Inc., owned by Frederick Wells. Prior to 2011, Wells decided to form a separate company to manufacture the products which Bay Plastics sold, including some of the products which it purchased from North Highland. Wells formed Jefferson Machine & Tool Inc. (“Jefferson Machine”) along with Dwain Trewyn—Wells owned 75% of Jefferson Machine and Trewyn owned the remaining 25%. At the time of Jefferson Machine’s formation, Trewyn was employed by North Highland in sales. Trewyn did not have a non-competition agreement with North Highland, but also did not inform North Highland that he would also be working at Jefferson Machine.
Continue Reading Wisconsin High Court Affirms High Summary Judgment Bar to Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims
Every day, companies unknowingly give up intellectual property and trade secrets which they could have otherwise protected with simple processes. Poor R&D policies may not capture patent rights on a company invention. A faulty or simply outdated employment agreement may not protect a customer list used by an employee who leaves for a competitor. These pitfalls are easily avoidable by
Continue Reading Webinar Recap! Simple Measures for Protecting Intellectual Property and Trade Secrets