Wednesday, November 16, 2022
Registration: 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Program: 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Reception: 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Location
Seyfarth Shaw LLP – Century City
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
About the
Continue Reading The Art of Performance Management, Employee Discipline, and Employee Separations
The California Lawyers Association 2022 IP Institute is taking place November 3-5, in Dana Point, California. Seyfarth is a silver sponsor for the conference, and Seyfarth attorneys Robert Milligan, Puya Partow-Navid, Joshua Salinas, and Sierra Chinn-Liu are attending.
Joshua Salinas—Seyfarth associate and member of the firm’s Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes practice—is leading a discussion during the Lunch with
Continue Reading Seyfarth Trade Secret Group to Present at California Lawyers Association 2022 IP Institute
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
Robert Milligan—Seyfarth partner and co-chair of the firm’s Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Compete practice—was named a 2022 Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California by The Daily Journal. Robert is a leading voice in this intricate area of law, with a practice primarily focused on trade secret, non-compete, and data theft/protection litigation, investigations, and transactional work. Robert represents multinational
Continue Reading Robert Milligan Honored as a 2022 Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California by The Daily Journal
In the fifth installment of our 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Jesse Coleman, Matt Simmons, and Kevin Green discussed legal developments and trends in Texas trade secret and non-compete law and how it is similar to and diverse from other jurisdictions.
As a conclusion to this webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:
Tuesday, September 27, 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 fifth installment of our 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, our team will cover recent legal developments and trends in Texas trade secret and non-compete law and how it
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! How and Why Texas Is Different When It Comes to Trade Secrets and Non-Competes
On September 18-20, Seyfarth partners Dawn Mertineit, Eric Barton, and Robert Milligan will be attending the Intellectual Property Owners Association’s Annual Meeting in Los Angeles. This event offers over two dozen education sessions, networking opportunities, committee meetings, and more.
During the event, Dawn will be speaking on a panel called “Hold on to Your Trade Secrets: The Winds of Change
Continue Reading Seyfarth Attorneys to Attend and Speak at IPO Annual Meeting
In June 2022, a federal judge sitting in the Southern District of New York issued an order denying defendants Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. (“Lionbridge”) and its parent company HIG Middle Market, LLC (“HIG”) attorneys’ fees and costs related to their assertion that plaintiff Transperfect Global, LLC (“Transperfect”) brought a misappropriation of trade secrets claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) in bad faith. The 2019 lawsuit was filed roughly 15 months after completion of a bidding war for the sale of Transperfect in a Delaware court-supervised auction. One of the participants in the auction was HIG, which had acquired Lionbridge—a competitor of Transperfect—in February 2017. In its suit, Transperfect alleged that HIG engaged in “fake bidding” during the auction so that it could access trade secrets in the form of confidential pricing data and customer lists and improperly share them with Lionbridge to poach two of Transperfect’s biggest clients.
Continue Reading No Fees for Failure to Show “Bad Faith” in Prosecution of Trade Secrets Claim
It’s a fact pattern that repeatedly arises in trade secret cases: a company hires someone who has a confidentiality agreement with their former employer. Just before (or shortly after) being hired, the individual emails confidential information from their former employer to individuals at their new job. The former employer files suit against the individual, but also asserts a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations against the new employer.
Continue Reading Merely Receiving Confidential Information Isn’t Enough: Georgia Court Dismisses Tortious Interference with Contract Claim in Trade Secret Case
On June 17, 2022, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed a lower appellate court’s decision, (which we previously wrote about here), which nixed the plaintiff’s $740 million trade secret win at trial and required the plaintiff to either accept a $201 million breach of contract win (which the defendant decried as “jackpot justice”) or go back to trial on all claims.
Briefly, real estate startup HouseCanary brought suit against Title Source, Inc., now known as Amrock, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), fraud, and breach of contract. At trial, the jury awarded HouseCanary $740 million on its TUTSA and fraud claims and $201 million on its breach of contract claim. HouseCanary could elect to recover one or the other, and it elected to recover the $740 million. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the trial court decision regarding TUTSA and fraud based on deficiencies in the jury charge. The appellate court then found that the TUTSA, fraud, and breach of contract claims were inseparable, leaving HouseCanary with two options: to retry all of its claims or recover only the $201 million awarded on the breach of contract claim.
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Confirms that HouseCanary Must Fly Toward a $201 Million Judgment or a Retrial