Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

shutterstock_270428249Generally when one refers to “competitors” in the context of protecting trade secrets, it is in regard to business competitors, not competing sports teams.  And usually when the talking heads on sports radio and television are discussing legal issues, they relate to domestic violence or other crimes, concussions, illicit and performance enhancing drugs,

shutterstock_176119643The parties in a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act case moved for partial summary judgment. Among the issues were whether the plaintiff had incurred the requisite $5,000 in qualifying losses, and whether the complaint was time-barred. The motions were denied, but the court had to do a lot of explaining. Quantlab Technologies Ltd. v. Godlevsky

The 2014 Year in Review is a compilation of our significant blog posts from throughout last year and is categorized by specific topics such as: Trade Secrets Legislation; Trade Secrets; Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; Non-Compete & Restrictive Covenants; Legislation; International; and Social Media and Privacy. As demonstrated by specific blog entries, including our Top

By Robert Milligan and Joshua Salinas

As companies face increasing competitive and financial pressures, management is understandably consumed with running the day-to-day operations of the business and working to achieve business objectives and maximize the bottom line. As a result, it is not uncommon for companies to find themselves in situations where important assets are

A worker’s authorized access of an employer’s computer system during the course of his employment, in which he acquired information that he later misused, gives rise to civil liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFFA), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held April 3 (Associated Pump & Supply

On April 11th, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and 41-month prison sentence of a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) defendant, holding that he was tried and convicted in an improper venue.  U.S. v. Auernheimer, No. 13-1816 (3rd Cir. Apr. 11, 2014).  Though we usually do not post on procedural

By Michael Wexler, James McNairy and Joshua Salinas

We are pleased to let you know that the webinar “2013 National Year in Review: What You Need to Know About the Recent Cases/Developments in Trade Secrets, Non-Compete and Computer Fraud Law” is now available as a podcast and webinar recording.

In Seyfarth’s first installment

The scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, remains unsettled in the First Circuit after two decisions issued just weeks apart adopted differing approaches to the treatment of such claims.

The CFAA prohibits the intentional access of a computer without authorization or exceeding a party’s authorization to obtain information

District courts are divided as to whether there is a private right of action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for persons whose computer service is not interrupted but who nevertheless incur costs (a) responding to a CFAA offense, (b) conducting a damage assessment, or (c) restoring computerized data or programs as they