.jpg)
As discussed in today’s trade secrets webinar entitled "Pleading, Proving and Protecting Trade Secrets in Litigation," in an all to common theme, the plaintiff in L–3 Communications Corporation v. Jaxon Engineering & Maintenance, Inc. et al., 2012 WL 1020516 (D.Colo. March 27, 2012) contended that several of its former employees devised a plan to leave L3 and create
Upcoming Client Webinar on April 24th: Pleading, Proving and Protecting Trade Secrets in Litigation
.jpg)
Seyfarth Shaw LLP is pleased to announce its third webinar in the 2012 Trade Secrets Webinar Series entitled "Pleading, Proving and Protecting Trade Secrets in Litigation” scheduled for April 24, 2012 at 1 p.m. e.s.t. The speakers for this informative webinar are Seyfarth Shaw LLP partners Michael Wexler, Robert Niemann, and David Monachino.
Most Federal and state courts require that
Failure to Specifically Identify Trade Secrets in a Complaint Does Not Bar a Complaint in New Jersey Federal Court
A growing number of courts across the country have required plaintiffs to specify with particularity the trade secret that they are accusing a defendant of stealing, and that plaintiffs’ refusal to do so could result in dismissal of the claim. See, e.g., Dura Global, Tech, Inc. v. Magna Donnelly Corp., 2008 WL 2064516 (E.D.Mich. May 14, 2008)