A decision from the Northern District of Illinois is the latest to reiterate a stern warning we have long highlighted for employers: when insufficient steps are taken by an employer to protect its own proprietary information, courts will not provide trade secret protection when such information is misappropriated.
A Protocol On Life Support – Financial Industry Assesses The Aftermath Of Major Defections From Broker Recruitment Pact
In the fourth quarter of 2017, two major financial firms dropped out of an industry-wide Protocol for Broker Recruiting (the “Protocol”), an agreement designed to reduce litigation surrounding the movement of stockbrokers between competing firms. While those departures do not necessarily seal the fate of the Protocol, they do portend an increase in litigation to
SCOTUS Declines To Review Password Sharing Prosecution Under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Our Workplace Privacy, E-Communication and Data Security Practice Group recently posted this article regarding the United States Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Nosal v. Unites States, 16-1344. This Blog previously posted articles about the Nosal case, which can be found here and here.
In the Nosal case, the individual defendant was criminally prosecuted
Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act Prohibits Improper Acquisition of Trade Secrets, Regardless of Subsequent Use
Misappropriation of trade secrets claims can sometimes be difficult to sustain. While evidence of the taking of a trade secret may be available, evidence of its subsequent use may not. In Integrated Global Services, Inc. v. Michael Mayo, Case No. 3:17cv563, by decision issued on September 13, 2017, the federal court for the
Federal Court Warns Companies – If You Don’t Protect Your Trade Secrets, Neither Will We
In 2016 Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act, creating a federal cause of action for the theft of trade secrets. For a plaintiff attempting to prove that the information at issue is a trade secret, there is a tendency to focus only on the information itself, rather than the manner in which the plaintiff
The Long-Arm of Minnesota Law Reaches Out to Adjudicate Claims Against an Out-of-State Employee
In Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Vlamis (Sept. 6, 2016), the Minnesota Court of Appeals reminded that employees who reside and work outside of Minnesota may still be hailed into Minnesota courts to defend their actions.
Patterson Dental Supply (“Patterson”) is a corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. Theodore Vlamis worked for
Groundhog Day for Massachusetts Non-Compete Reform
Once again, the Massachusetts legislature was unable to agree on non-compete reform legislation by the July 31, 2016, end of the current legislative session. The House and Senate had passed versions of non-compete reform that differed on key provisions. At the end of the session, however, the House and Senate failed to pass a compromise
Accessing Database Violates Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Economic Espionage Act – Ninth Circuit Affirms Criminal Conviction of Former Employee
The Ninth Circuit recently filed its latest installment in the saga involving David Nosal and his former employer, Korn/Ferry International, an executive search firm. Korn/Ferry maintains a proprietary database of executive candidates for its paying customers. Nosal, a former Korn/Ferry executive, set up a competing business. Allegedly desiring the information in Korn/Ferry’s database for his
New Proposed Rule Would Restrict Confidentiality Agreements for Government Contractors
The Jackson Lewis Affirmative Action Compliance & OFCCP Defense Practice Group has written about an important new proposal which would bar certain employers from using confidentiality agreements that restrict employees or subcontractors from reporting waste, fraud or abuse to the government. This is the latest in a series of new and proposed requirements imposed on
Four Non-Compete and Confidentiality Agreement Issues to Watch in 2016
Jackson Lewis has prepared an end-of-the-year review of four non-compete and confidentiality issues to watch in 2016 on its website.
Clifford R. Atlas, co-chair of the firm’s non-compete and unfair competition practice group, and attorney Puja Gupta from the firm’s Baltimore office, identify four developments to keep an eye on next year:
1. Enforceability of