Continuing our annual tradition, we have compiled our top developments and headlines for 2018-2019 in trade secret, non-compete, and computer fraud law.
1. Government Agencies Increasing Scrutiny of Restrictive Covenants
In mid-2018, the Attorneys General of ten states investigated several franchisors for their alleged use of “no poach” provisions in their franchise agreements. In a July 9, 2018, letter, the Attorneys General for New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island requested information from several franchisors about their alleged use of such provisions. Less than twenty-four hours later, some franchisors (mostly different ones than those who received the information demands) entered into agreements with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office to remove such clauses from their franchise agreements. The recent focus by state law enforcement on franchisors is a new twist, given that restrictive covenant agreements in the franchise industry are typically given more leeway than in the employment context.
Continue Reading Top 10 Developments and Headlines in Trade Secret, Non-Compete, and Computer Fraud Law in 2018/2019
Please join us for a one-hour CLE webinar on Tuesday, January 29, 2019, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern / 12:00 p.m. Central / 10:00 a.m. Pacific.
A Pennsylvania federal court recently denied Defendant Synchrony Group, LLC’s motion to dismiss a trade secret lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Jazz”) holding that Plaintiff sufficiently stated a trade secret claim. 
A California federal district court recently granted a TRO and preliminary injunction against a general manager who allegedly misappropriated customer information from his previous employer in violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), and his employment agreement. 
Introduction
Throughout 2018, Seyfarth Shaw’s dedicated Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes Practice Group hosted a series of CLE webinars that addressed significant issues facing clients today in this important and ever-changing area of law. The series consisted of seven webinars:
On November 13, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas’s denial of prevailing party attorneys’ fees in a matter of first impression under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”). In short, the Fifth Circuit held that a dismissal without prejudice of a DTSA case does not support an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees.
A small, Chicago-based magnetic picture frame developer’s claims for trade secret misappropriation against a photo album manufacturer will be headed to trial after an Illinois federal district court largely denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Puroon, Inc.’s (“Puroon”) founder and CEO, Hyunju Song, developed the “Memory Book,” “an all-in-one convertible photo frame, album, and scrapbook” that included magnetic openings and an “interchangeable outside view.” In 2013, Puroon launched a website displaying the Memory Book and Song attended various trade shows where attendees were able to interact with the product. Song also sent samples of the Memory Book to representatives of certain retailers without requiring them to sign a nondisclosure agreement.
In Seyfarth’s seventh installment in its 2018 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Andrew Boutros and John Schleppenbach focused on criminal liability for trade secret theft, including four key statutes, key elements for criminal prosecution, civil RICO under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and best practices for avoiding misappropriation and for handling misappropriation when it occurs.
A government contractor learned the hard way that bid documents containing trade secrets are not protected from disclosure in Massachusetts. On September 21, 2018, a Massachusetts U.S. District Court judge ruled that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) doesn’t bar requests under the public records law for bid proposals containing a contractor’s trade secrets.