Both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) and Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“PUTSA”) provide that a defendant may recover its attorneys’ fees if it demonstrates that a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is brought in “bad faith.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D); 12 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5305(1). But who decides “bad faith” – a
Continue Reading Third Circuit Holds that Judge, Not Jury, May Determine “Bad Faith” for Purposes of Fee Shifting Under DTSA and PUTSA
Though an employer may be eager to bring a trade secret claim against former employees as soon as possible, filing suit before properly vetting the claim can lead to serious consequences: a malicious prosecution case against the lawyers who signed the pleadings.
A law firm is fighting such allegations in California after losing at bench trial on behalf of FLIR
Continue Reading “Reasonable Suspicion” of Trade Secret Misappropriation Isn’t Always Enough
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. Central, Michael Wexler, Jim McNairy and Josh Salinas will present Seyfarth’s first installment of its 2014 Trade Secrets Webinar series. They will review noteworthy cases and other legal developments from across the nation this past year in the areas of trade secret and data theft, non-compete enforceability, computer fraud, and the
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar: 2013 National Year in Review — What You Need to Know About the Recent Cases/Developments in Trade Secrets, Non-Compete and Computer Fraud Law
The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) allows for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on a trade secret misappropriation claim. The statute permits award of attorney’s fees to a plaintiff for a defendant’s “willful and malicious” misappropriation and to a defendant when a plaintiff makes a claim in “bad faith”:
“If a claim of misappropriation is
Continue Reading Court Awards Attorney’s Fees for “Bad Faith” Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim
On May 17, 2013, a Pennsylvania appellate court, with one of its judges dissenting, ordered that the trial court award attorneys’ fees to a married couple whose neighbors wrongfully accused them of trade secret misappropriation regarding flagstone artwork. Krafft v. Downey, Pa. Sup. Ct. No. 476 WDA 2012 (Donohue, J.).
According to the majority, plaintiffs Jack and Linda Krafft
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Appellate Court Orders Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Bad-Faith Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims
.jpg)
Section 4 of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act provides, in part, that if "a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith . . . the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party." The terms "bad faith" and "prevailing party" are not defined in the statute. Most of the few judicial opinions interpreting those terms as they
By Justin Beyer
In a matter of first impression, Judge William Standish of the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled in Best Medical Int’l, Inc. v. Spellman, 07-cv-01709-WLS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147853 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2011), that, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“PUTSA”), a defendant may recover attorneys’ fees against a plaintiff where the plaintiff