March 31, 2022
11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Pacific
12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Mountain
1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Central
2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern

REGISTER HERE

Please join Seyfarth for a webinar on what employers need to know regarding the importance of data privacy and the impacts of the California Privacy Rights Act to your organization. Presenters will review the changes that will come along with the CPRA, along with important considerations that companies should assess as they evaluate their obligations under the new law, and the new and additional rights that individuals may have.

  • Differences between CCPA and CPRA for In-Scope Businesses
  • The Employee Exemption & Potential New Employee Rights
  • Navigating Privacy Right Requests
  • Expectations and Planning Recommendations

Speakers

Kathleen McConnell, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
John P. Tomaszewski, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Emily A. Dorner, Associate, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Seyfarth Office Hours. Following the program, presenters will remain available for an additional 15 minutes for Q&A.

REGISTER HERE

If you have any questions, please contact Christian Pourreau at cpourreau@seyfarth.com and reference this event.

Learn more about our eDiscovery & Information Governance practice.

This webinar is accredited for CLE in CA, IL, NJ, and NY. Credit will be applied for as requested for TX, GA, WA, NC and VA. The following jurisdictions accept reciprocal credit with these accredited states, and individuals can use the certificate they receive to gain CLE credit therein: AZ, CT, NH. The following jurisdictions do not require CLE, but attendees will receive general certificates of attendance: DC, MA, MD, MI, SD. For all other jurisdictions, a general certificate of attendance and the necessary materials will be issued that can be used in other jurisdictions for self-application. If you have questions about jurisdictions, please email CLE@seyfarth.com.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced the indictment by a grand jury charging four owners/managers of home health care agencies in Maine with participating in a conspiracy to suppress wages and restrict the job mobility of personal support specialist (PSS) workers in violation of Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act. According to the indictment, the owners/managers agreed to fix the rates paid to these workers and also agreed not to hire each other’s workers. The DOJ warned in a press release that “[t]his indictment is the first in this ongoing investigation into wage fixing and worker allocation schemes in the PSS industry,” and part of a larger “ongoing federal antitrust investigation into wage fixing and worker allocation in the home health care industry.” Continue Reading Alleged “No-Poach” Agreement in Health Care Industry Results in Another Criminal Antitrust Prosecution

restricive-covenenat-legislation-trendsOver the past 10–15 years, we have seen an explosion of legislative activity related to restrictive covenants. This activity is happening not only in state legislatures but on the federal level as well. While each proposal is different, we’ve certainly seen trends emerge, including required notice provisions, fee shifting, and choice of law and venue requirements.

One of the most prevalent trends is the move towards banning non-competes (and sometimes, other restrictive covenants) for so-called “low-wage workers.” To date, 10 states have implemented a low-wage ban of sorts: Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington.[1] Continue Reading More States Eye Low-Wage Non-Compete Bans

Thursday, March 17, 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

REGISTER HERE

Trade secrets are critical intellectual property, and the threat to trade secrets continues to increase year after year. It’s vital for companies to protect trade secrets, both in the US and abroad, and it’s also important for companies to know how to enforce their rights in regards to trade secrets. In Seyfarth’s second installment in the 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Jesse Coleman, Daniel Hart, and Caitlin Lane will discuss:

  • How to identify the greatest threats to trade secrets
  • Tips and best practices for protecting trade secrets abroad
  • Enforcement mechanisms and remedies internationally and in the US

Speakers
Jesse Coleman, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Daniel Hart, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Caitlin Lane, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

REGISTER HERE


If you have any questions, please contact Colleen Vest at cvest@seyfarth.com and reference this event.

This webinar is accredited for CLE in CA, IL, NJ, and NY. Credit will be applied for as requested for TX, GA, WA, NC, FL and VA. The following jurisdictions accept reciprocal credit with these accredited states, and individuals can use the certificate they receive to gain CLE credit therein: AZ, CT, NH. The following jurisdictions do not require CLE, but attendees will receive general certificates of attendance: DC, MA, MD, MI, SD. For all other jurisdictions, a general certificate of attendance and the necessary materials will be issued that can be used in other jurisdictions for self-application. If you have questions about jurisdictions, please email CLE@seyfarth.com.

In the first program in the 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Michael Wexler, Robert Milligan, and James Yu reviewed 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. Plus, they provided predictions for what to watch for in 2022.

As a follow up to this webinar, our team wanted to highlight:

  • Recent trade secret decisions demonstrate the need for the plaintiff to clearly articulate the alleged trade secret misappropriated in its complaint by describing its trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge of those persons who are skilled in the trade and to permit the defendant to ascertain at least the boundaries within which the secret lies. Additionally, a recent Third Circuit decision held that copying is not the only method that trade secret plaintiffs can demonstrate actionable “use” under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The court held that the use of a trade secret encompasses all the ways one can take advantage of trade secret information to obtain an economic benefit, competitive advantage, or other commercial value, or to accomplish a similar exploitative purpose, such as assisting or accelerating research or development. The Third Circuit also held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged misappropriation based on circumstantial evidence. The court reasoned that indirect use can be inferred from the timing of a defendant employee’s hire, deception in the employee’s departure, the corporate defendant’s lack of experience in the industry, low financial investment, and quick success.
  • At the federal level, we continue to see bipartisan attempts to address a national uniform approach to non-compete covenants. While the present bills are not likely to pass, it is apparent from Biden’s July 9, 2021, Executive Order that federal agencies, including the FTC, DOJ, and DOL, are being delegated and empowered with enforcement responsibilities aimed at curtailing the use of non-compete agreements that are perceived to limit workforce mobility. In particular, in December 2021, the DOJ and FTC hosted a virtual workshop that brought together policy experts and labor leaders to discuss efforts to promote competitive labor markets and worker mobility, including scrutinizing and limiting the use of restrictive covenants. Furthermore, the DOJ also obtained criminal indictments against employers in the health care and aerospace engineering industries who have allegedly violated antitrust laws by conspiring to refrain from soliciting or hiring each others’ workers. This has spilled over into civil class action lawsuits brought by employees alleging that the conspiracy impacted their wages and careers or that they have been otherwise harmed by these so-called no-poach agreements. Given the Biden Administration’s objective of fostering worker mobility, 2022 will likely see additional efforts at the federal level to curb the use of non-compete and no-hire agreements, particularly with respect to lower waged workers.
  • Care should be taken to review state law as to new statutes affecting employee non-compete/non-solicit provisions and applicability with at least 20 states having new statutes and approximately 70 statutes pending.
  • Particular attention should be paid to timing for notifying employees of covenant provisions and providing agreements for review.
  • Employee compensation thresholds must be carefully examined to determine if covenants are prohibited under state law for lower earning employees.

Robert Milligan, Seyfarth partner and co-chair of the Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes practice, is presenting the “It’s 10:00 pm. Do You Know Where Your Company’s Crown Jewels Are? Does Someone Else? Trade Secrets as an Information Asset” session at the MER Conference on May 11 at 1:30 p.m. Eastern in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The panel, which includes members of the Sedona Conference Working Group 12 (WG12), will discuss the WG12’s newly published guidance on protecting trade secrets and business confidences throughout the information and employment lifecycles. They will cover:

  • Defining “trade secrets” and “business confidences”
  • What makes trade secrets valuable and enforceable in court
  • When value is destroyed: exfiltration by departing employees or corporate M&A negotiators
  • When trade secrets become a liability: infiltration by new employees or acquisitions
  • Reasonable IG policies and procedures to protect trade secrets

MER equips information governance practitioners to better impact their organization’s business objectives by bringing industry thought-leaders, solution providers, and practitioners into thought-provoking, interactive, solution-oriented events year-round.

For more information or to register for the MER Conference, visit the MER Conference website.

On Thursday, January 27, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern, Boston partner Erik Weibust will present a webinar for Thomson Reuters’ West LegalEdCenter entitled “The Future of Noncompetes and What it Means for the Protection of Your Workforce and Trade Secrets: Part 2.”

This is the second installment of a three part series, and will focus on safeguarding information in the workplace and with a remote workforce. Erik will be joined on the panel, which is being moderated by Nicole Daly, by Russell Beck and Peter Steinmeyer.

Additional information and registration are available here.

Yet another state has made it harder for businesses to implement restrictive covenants—this time with criminal penalties.

Colorado’s restrictive covenants statute already provides that it is unlawful to “use force, threats, or other means of intimidation to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful occupation,” and further states that non-competes are invalid unless they fall into one of four categories:

  1. Covenants made in connection with the purchase and sale of a business (or the assets of a business);
  2. Covenants made for the protection of trade secrets;
  3. Covenants for the recovery of expenses incurred in educating and training employees who were employed for less than 2 years; and
  4. Covenants for executive and management personnel (and their professional staff) and officers.

That has been the law in Colorado for years—but a new, draconian portion of the statute will go into effect in just over a month. Continue Reading Colorado Criminalizes Attempts to Curb Competition

After a four day bench trial on August 10, 2021, a Houston federal judge ruled that the conceptual designs an oil and gas manufacturing company disclosed to its erstwhile collaborator under an NDA were not eligible for trade secret protection because they were neither secret nor misappropriated due predominantly to disclosure in a prior public patent. The ruling underscores the necessity that trade secrets are—in fact—kept actually secret. Moreover, any prior patent of the party seeking to protect its trade secrets should be scrutinized for similarity with the technology or information allegedly comprising a trade secret. Continue Reading Texas Oil & Gas Manufacturing Company’s DTSA/TUTSA Lawsuit Unraveled by Public Disclosure of Alleged Trade Secret in its Own Expired Patent

Robert Milligan, Seyfarth Partner and Co-Chair of the Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes Practice Group, is a speaker for the “Closing Plenary – Mid-Year Updates and Ethics of Inventorship of AI Patenting” session at the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Mid-Winter Institute on February 4 at 9 a.m. Pacific, in Rancho Mirage, California.

Robert Milligan is on the “Mid-Year Updates” half of the session and is speaking on recent developments in trade secrets law. Other speakers are covering updates on patent, antitrust, trademark, and copyright developments.

AIPLA is a national bar association that represents a wide and diverse spectrum of individuals from law firms, companies, and institutions involved directly or indirectly in the practice of patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and unfair competition law, as well as other fields of law affecting intellectual property.

For more information about AIPLA’s Mid-Winter Institute or to register for the program, please visit AIPLA’s website.