Courts have long lamented that “computing damages in a trade secret case is not cut and dry,” Am. Sales Corp. v. Adventure Travel, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 1476, 1479 (E.D. Va. 1994), meaning that “every [trade secret] case requires a flexible and imaginative approach to the problem of damages,” Univ. Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518, 538 (5th Cir. 1974).

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and virtually every state’s version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) (only New York has not adopted the UTSA) permits recovery of damages for (1) actual loss caused by the misappropriation; (2) unjust enrichment that is not addressed in computing damages for actual loss; or (3) a reasonable royalty for the misappropriator’s unauthorized disclosure or use of the trade secret. There has been little guidance from the courts, however, as to how to calculate these different, and sometimes competing damages calculations, many relying on the “flexible and imaginative approach” set forth in the Fifth Circuit’s 1974 pre-UTSA University Computing decision. Even more difficult is the case where a plaintiff’s damages are based on the defendant’s anticipated future use of the trade secret, given that those damages necessarily will involve speculation about the revenues the defendant will generate from its use of the trade secret.
Continue Reading

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently held that, under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq., information included in a patent application remains an actionable trade secret, thereby extending the time for potential misappropriation until the patent’s publication.

DTSA

The DTSA was enacted in 2016 to expand trade secret law beyond its traditional roots as a state law doctrine, creating the first federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. To succeed in bringing a DTSA claim, a plaintiff must prove (1) the existence of a trade secret; (2) the misappropriation of a trade secret by another; (3) and the trade secret’s relation to a good or service used or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. Additionally, the owner must take reasonable measures to keep the trade secret a secret. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1).
Continue Reading

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.

The Neglected Step-Child of IP

Trade secrets have, up until recently, been somewhat ignored. When I started to pay attention to trade secrets, some of my colleagues and contacts probably thought that I was mad.

After all, trade secrets were not included in many IP educational sessions. The subject rarely came up at IP conferences and seminars. This form of IP was not addressed by most IP Law Firms, even so called full service IP Law Firms. It clearly was not in the ‘job spec’ of many in-house IP Managers or Chief IP Officers.
Continue Reading

In Seyfarth’s third installment in its 2019 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Katherine Perrelli, Justin K. Beyer, and Amy Abeloff focused on the key provisions of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, how the DTSA has evolved since it was passed three years ago, and what to expect in the future.

As a conclusion to

Caramel Crisp LLC, the owner of Garrett Popcorn Shops (“Garrett”), the renowned Chicago-based purveyor of deliciously flavored popcorn, recently filed suit in federal court in Chicago against its former director of research and development, Aisha Putnam, alleging that she misappropriated the company’s trade secrets, including its recipes for Garret’s famous popcorn, after she was fired. Putnam was hired in 2014 and was eventually promoted to the role of Director of Research and Development, where she had access to some of Garrett’s most confidential information and trade secrets. In that role, she was required to sign a confidentiality and non-compete agreement, which, among other things, required her to return all of Garrett’s confidential information upon the termination of her employment.
Continue Reading

On Thursday, May 2 at 12:00 p.m. Central Time, in Seyfarth’s third installment of its 2019 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys will focus on the key provisions of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and how the DTSA has evolved since it was passed three years ago.

Seyfarth attorneys Katherine Perrelli, Justin K. Beyer, and

A California federal district court recently granted a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against a former employee for misappropriating proprietary and confidential information in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), and company confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. Bemis Co., Inc. v. Summers, No. 219CV00344TLNKJN, 2019 WL 1004853, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2019).

Background

Plaintiff Bemis Company, Inc. (“Bemis”) sued a former employee for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract. Bemis is one of the largest global suppliers of flexible and rigid packaging products, including snack food bags, candy wrappers, cheese packaging, hot dog packaging, medicine packaging, and much more.
Continue Reading

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019, at 12 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern, Seyfarth Partner and Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Compete Practice Group Co-Chair Robert Milligan is presenting a webinar for myLawCLE, a partner of the Federal Bar Association. The “Latest Developments in Trade Secrets Law and Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreements” webinar covers some of

The 2018 Trading Secrets Year in Review is a compilation of our significant blog posts from throughout the year and is categorized by specific topics such as: Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Non-Compete & Restrictive Covenants, Legislation, International, and Social Media and Privacy. As demonstrated by our specific blog entries, including our Top

Continuing our annual tradition, we have compiled our top developments and headlines for  2018-2019 in trade secret, non-compete, and computer fraud law.

1. Government Agencies Increasing Scrutiny of Restrictive Covenants

In mid-2018, the Attorneys General of ten states investigated several franchisors for their alleged use of “no poach” provisions in their franchise agreements. In a July 9, 2018, letter, the Attorneys General for New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island requested information from several franchisors about their alleged use of such provisions. Less than twenty-four hours later, some franchisors (mostly different ones than those who received the information demands) entered into agreements with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office to remove such clauses from their franchise agreements. The recent focus by state law enforcement on franchisors is a new twist, given that restrictive covenant agreements in the franchise industry are typically given more leeway than in the employment context.
Continue Reading