Uber’s ongoing battle with Waymo in the Northern District of California federal court over technology used in self-driving cars provided another significant decision concerning the broad scope of trade secret preemption under California state law.
Waymo accused Levandowski (a former employee) of taking more than 14,000 company files before leaving Waymo and starting his own self-driving truck company (which Uber bought for $680 million). Waymo asserted several claims against Uber for misappropriation of trade secrets under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”). In addition to the trade secret claims, Waymo asserted four claims for patent infringement and one claim for violation of section 17200 of California’s Business and Professions Code. Continue Reading California Federal Court Finds CUTSA Preemption on Unfair Competition Claim in Uber Row
On June 3, 2017, Governor Sandoval signed Assembly Bill 276 into law, amending Nevada Revised Statute 613, which governs non-competition agreements. Notably, the law adds requirements to the enforceability and validity of non-competition agreements, and importantly, now allows courts to “blue-pencil” non-competition agreements, overturning Nevada Supreme Court’s recent decision in Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam.
Robert B. Milligan, Seyfarth Partner and Co-Chair of the Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes Practice Group, will be a panelist for the “Growing Importance of Trade Secrets in Protecting Emerging Technology” webinar presented by ITechLaw’s Intellectual Property Committee on July 11, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern.
As a special feature of our blog—special guest postings by experts, clients, and other professionals—please enjoy this blog entry from Charlie Platt, a director at iDiscovery Solutions and a Certified Ethical Hacker. He advises clients on data analytics, digital forensics, and cybersecurity.
In Seyfarth’s third webinar in its series of 2017 Trade Secrets Webinars, Seyfarth attorneys Justin Beyer, Marcus Mintz, Dean Fanelli, and Thomas Haag focused on how to define and protect trade secrets in the pharmaceutical industry, including: reviewing significant civil and criminal cases in the industry, discussing how federal and state trade secret statutes and decisions may impact the protection of trade secrets, and suggested best practices for protecting trade secrets from invention through sale.
On May 11, 2017, a 
Trade secret identification and protection is more critical than ever for employers. Technology is consuming the way we do business, and new laws concerning trade secrets and the content of employment agreements make trade secret identification and protection more critical than ever.
Hearkening back to the rivalry between the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers in the 1980s, Massachusetts courts (as well as others around the country) have increasingly been asked to analyze the application of California law in litigation related to non-competition agreements. As many readers of this blog know, non-competition agreements are generally not enforceable under California law. Thus, even where the subject agreement contains a forum selection clause outside of California, or where the employee may have worked in another state, former employees are increasingly racing to file first in California courts or arguing that California law should be applied, thereby hoping to avoid any restrictions on mobility.
Friends of our blog are conducting a survey of lawyers who work in-house at companies and who have some experience with trade secret law.
On May 19, 2017, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law several amendments to the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“TUTSA”), located in Chapter 134A of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The amendments go into effect on September 1, 2017. In doing so, Texas has aligned its statute more closely with federal law and codified recent judicial interpretations of the law.