On January 23, 2020, the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas retracted its previous ruling in the trade secrets dispute Goldberg, et al. v. EMR (USA Holdings) Inc., et al. and issued a new opinion upon rehearing. In doing so, the Court reversed course on its previous ruling that communications with customers and suppliers involved a matter of public concern and were an exercise of free speech.
The Court’s new ruling, which was decided under the pre-September 1, 2019, version of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”), makes clear that communications between a company and customers or suppliers that deal only with the sale of a commodity are not protected by the TCPA.[1]
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.
On Tuesday, January 28 at 12:00 p.m. Central, in the first installment of the 2020 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys will review noteworthy legislation, cases and other legal developments from across the nation over the last year in the area of trade secrets and data theft, non-competes and other restrictive covenants, and computer fraud.
In a trilogy of recent cases, the Texas Courts of Appeals have employed the “commercial speech” exception to exclude certain business claims from the scope of the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act (“TCPA”). This trend will likely only accelerate now that the legislature has further reduced the TCPA’s reach with additional statutory changes, restricting the protections regarding the right of association and the TCPA’s application to trade secret cases and non-compete cases.
Manhattan restaurant Sottolio, Inc., d/b/a Norma Gastronomia Siciliana hired Giuseppe Manco—“a noted Italian pizza chef, or pizzaiolo”—to consult on its menu. At the same time, Manco and his wife purchased a 9% interest in the restaurant, becoming co-owners of the business. Manco signed a non-compete and non-disclosure agreement in connection with his hiring, under which Manco agreed, for ten years, to not replicate, copy, or duplicate Plaintiff’s confidential information, including its “signature recipes” for arancine, pasta alla norma, caponata, anelletti al forno, and carbonara di mare, or to use the signature recipes within a ten mile radius of Sottolio’s Manhattan restaurant. 
When a competitor or former employee misappropriates a company’s trade secrets, the company often does not know for an extended period of time. This is especially true when the perpetrator takes action to conceal its misappropriation. For these reasons, the statute of limitations only starts to run once the company knows or should have known of the misappropriation. But this rule is not a universal remedy; companies should be aware that once they have sufficient knowledge that misappropriation may be occurring, they must take action or risk the running of the statute of limitations. A recent decision from the California Court of Appeals reinforces these principles.
It is axiomatic that in order for information to be considered a trade secret, it must have been kept secret. But what if the trade secret is disclosed without the owner’s consent? Such was the issue in Intellisoft, Ltd. v. Wistron Corp. et al., No. H044281, slip op. (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2019), a recent unpublished decision from the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District. 
Seyfarth Trade Secrets Attorneys are participating in The Sedona Conference Working Group 12 Annual Meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, November 4–5, 2019.