A government contractor learned the hard way that bid documents containing trade secrets are not protected from disclosure in Massachusetts. On September 21, 2018, a Massachusetts U.S. District Court judge ruled that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) doesn’t bar requests under the public records law for bid proposals containing a contractor’s trade secrets. Continue Reading No Protection Under The DTSA for Bid Documents Containing Trade Secrets
A Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Judges A. Wallace Tashima, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Paul J. Watford recently heard oral argument in Anheuser-Busch Companies v. Clark, 17-15591, concerning the denial of a former employer’s anti-SLAPP motion in a trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract case. This is the second time the case has made its way up to the Ninth Circuit. We previously reported on this case in March 2017. The panel has not yet issued its decision but the Ninth Circuit’s decision could have far reaching implications for trade secret and data theft cases involving purported whistleblowing activities. Continue Reading Hold My Beer: Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Trade Secret/Anti-SLAPP Row for a Second Time
Please join us for a one-hour CLE webinar on Wednesday, November 14, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern / 12:00 p.m. Central / 10:00 a.m. Pacific.
Trade secret misappropriation is increasingly gaining the attention of law enforcement authorities. This reality creates different dynamics and risks depending on whether a company is being accused of wrongdoing or is the victim of such conduct. On Wednesday, November 14, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. Central, Seyfarth Shaw attorneys Jesse Coleman, Andrew Boutros, and John Schleppenbach will present the “Criminal Trade Secret Theft Update” webinar, the seventh installment in Seyfarth’s 2018 Trade Secrets Webinar Series.
The webinar will focus on criminal liability for trade secret theft, including:
- Key statutes: Economic Espionage Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act
- Key elements for criminal prosecution
- Factors that prosecutors consider when deciding whether and what to prosecute
- How to work with federal prosecutors and their law enforcement partners
- Civil RICO under the Defend Trade Secrets Act
- Best practices for avoiding misappropriation and what to do when you suspect misappropriation has occurred
In Seyfarth’s sixth installment in its 2018 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Daniel Hart, Marjorie Culver, Alex Meier, and Paul Yovanic Jr. focused on how to identify the greatest threats to trade secrets, tips and best practices for protecting trade secrets abroad, and enforcement mechanisms and remedies.
As a conclusion to this well-received webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:
- You don’t want to be in a position where you’re relying exclusively on trade secrets law to protect proprietary information. When possible, execute a confidentiality agreement. This will not only protect a wider range of information, but also often helps with securing pre-discovery injunctive relief.
- In order to adequately protect trade secrets abroad, companies should inform employees of the important nature of secret information, take steps to secure secret information and limit access only to necessary employees, and avoid liability without culpability by revising employment agreements and informing new hires of the prohibited conduct.
- Restrictive covenants abroad are easier to enforce when agreements are narrowly tailored for duration, geographic scope, and nature and when penalties are reasonable.
- For international misappropriation, consider whether you want to pursue relief in the foreign jurisdiction or in the United States. The Defend Trade Secrets Act and, in some instances, Section 337 actions before the International Trade Commission rules offer powerful alternatives to proceedings in other jurisdictions.
Seyfarth Partner and Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Compete Practice Group Co-Chair Robert Milligan is on the panel for the “Hot Topics in Trade Secret Litigation: the DTSA, Remedies, Anti-SLAPP, and Constitutional issues” session on November 8, at the California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Institute in San Jose, California.
The “Hot Topics in Trade Secret Litigation” session will cover some of the most intriguing (and vexing) topics in trade secret litigation and will provide attendees valuable insights from the trenches. The panel will address a broad range of issues, including:
- The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA)
- Trade secret misappropriation as the predicate act of a RICO claim
- Damages and entitlement of alternative monetary relief
- Anti-SLAPP issues
- Constitutional issues, such as the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Seventh Amendment
For more information or to register for the IP Institute, click here: https://calawyers.org/Sections/Intellectual-Property-Law/Education/IP-Institute
As a special feature of our blog—guest postings by experts, clients, and other professionals—please enjoy this blog entry from Donal O’Connell, Managing Director of Chawton Innovation Services Ltd.
An audit is the examination of a specific aspect of an organization, ideally by someone independent of that organization.
The purpose of an audit is to provide independent assurance that an organization’s management, governance, and processes are operating effectively and that any associated assets are being properly and professionally managed. Continue Reading Trade Secrets Audit
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, Seyfarth Partner and Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Compete Practice Group Co-Chair Robert Milligan is presenting a webinar focused on the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). The Knowledge Group webinar, titled “Defend Trade Secrets Act Litigation in the 2018 Landscape: Understanding New Trends and Developments,” is from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time and will cover the following topics:
- Increasing Popularity of Trade Secret Litigation: Key Driving Factors
- Recent DTSA Litigation Trends
- Current Issues and Developments
- Notable Cases
- Litigation Strategies
- What Lies Ahead
For more information or to register for the webinar, click here.
Democratic U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced legislation on April 26, 2018, entitled the Workforce Mobility Act (“WMA”). Although the text of the WMA is not yet available, according to various press releases, it would prohibit the use of covenants not to compete nationwide. In Senator Warren’s press release announcing her co-sponsorship of the bill, Senator Warren stated that “[t]hese clauses reduce worker bargaining power, stifle competition and innovation, and hurt Americans striving for better opportunities. I’m glad to join Senator Murphy to put an end to these anti-worker, anti-market agreements.” Continue Reading Democratic U.S. Senators Seek to Abolish Non-Compete Agreements
In what appears to be a first under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), a United States District Judge has thrown out claims against an alleged trade secret thief on the basis of the DTSA’s immunity for confidential disclosures to attorneys in the course of investigating a suspected violation of the law. Christian v. Lannett Co., Inc., No. 16-cv-00963-CDJ, 2018 WL 1532849 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2018).
Certain Trade Secret Disclosures to Attorneys or the Government Are Protected
The DTSA exempts from both criminal and civil liability any trade secret disclosure made in confidence to a federal, state, or local official or to an attorney if the disclosure is made “solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law.” 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(1). Continue Reading Defend Trade Secrets Act First: Claim Tossed Based on Whistleblower Immunity
A recent decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reinforces the importance of the timing of purported misconduct in alleged violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. v. Sandhu, et al., 2018 WL 617991 (Jan. 30, 2018), Judge Savage found that a defendant former executive could not be liable under the CFAA for conduct that occurred while she had authorized access to computers from which she misappropriated trade secrets. Id. at *1. However, the court also found that CFAA claims could be brought against the recipients of those trade secrets under an “indirect access” theory, and that DTSA claims could be brought on the basis of activity that began before the enactment of the DTSA but continued to occur after its passage. Continue Reading Federal Court Dismisses CFAA Claims Against Former Executive, Allows CFAA and DTSA Claims Against Competitor in Pharmaceuticals Trade Secret Dispute