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.
On Tuesday, January 29 at 12:00 p.m. Central Time, in Seyfarth’s first installment of its 2019 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys will review noteworthy cases and 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. Plus, they will provide predictions for what to watch for in 2019.
Seyfarth attorneys Michael Wexler, Robert Milligan, and Joshua Salinas will address the following topics:
- Significant new federal and state court decisions and legislation on non-compete and other restrictive covenants that may impact their enforcement
- The Defend Trade Secrets Act and tips for navigating the law and an overview of what we know now that it’s been in effect for more than 2 years
- Discussion of recent trade secret misappropriation decisions
- Noteworthy data breaches and criminal prosecutions for trade secret misappropriation, data theft, and computer fraud matters and discussion of lessons learned
- Best practices for updating agreements and policies to adequately protect company assets and trade secrets
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 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. 
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. 
It is well known that courts interpreting their respective states’ versions of the Uniform Trade Secret Act (“UTSA”) have not uniformly applied UTSA’s preemption provision. While some states hold that their acts only preempt claims involving information that constitutes a “trade secret,” others hold that their acts also preempt claims based on information that may not technically meet the “trade secret” definition. See, e.g., Spitz v. Proven Winners N. Am., LLC, 759 F.3d 724, 733 (7th Cir. 2014) (concluding that Illinois’s UTSA preempts claims “that are essentially claims of trade secret misappropriation, even when the alleged ‘trade secret’ does not fall within the Act’s definition”); Am. Biomedical Grp., Inc. v. Techtrol, Inc., 374 P.3d 820, 827 (Okla. 2016) (holding that Oklahoma’s UTSA preempts “conflicting tort claims only for misappropriation of a trade secret” and “does not displace tort claims for information not meeting this definition” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 
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. 
Many companies assume that they need to choose between patent protections or trade secret protections for their intellectual property, thereby foregoing an important tool in their arsenal to protect key company assets. Some believe that these protections are diametrically opposed, as patents offer protection of intellectual property in exchange for public disclosure, whereas trade secrets offer protection for ideas, recipes, information, and technology, which has been kept confidential. However, despite the misconception that they are incompatible, trade secret and patent protections can be complementary means to protect IP, as evidenced by a recent Federal Circuit opinion which explored the intersection of patent law and trade secrets.