It’s not every day the U.S. Supreme Court issues an opinion relevant to this blog, so we are understandably excited when it does.
In a landmark decision, the Court has ruled that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq., does not prohibit improper use of computer information that
It’s not often that a case in our practice area reaches the Supreme Court of the United States, so we are genuinely excited!
In Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783, the U.S. Supreme Court will have a chance to resolve (finally) the circuit split regarding the scope of the Computer Fraud and
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
Clifford R. Atlas and Ravindra K. Shaw of Jackson Lewis’s New York office have written on the firm’s website about a recent decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals applying the narrow definition of “exceeds authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The case is United States v. Valle, 2015 U.S.
When an executive search firm bought the goodwill and other assets of a similar firm and learned that the individual sellers took client lists and diverted business in violation of their non-compete agreements, it terminated the sellers’ employment and sued them and other third-party defendants for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) as
An executive in Pennsylvania who filed suit against her former employer over control of her LinkedIn account under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA” or “Act”) had her CFAA claim dismissed as her lawsuit survived under alternative theories. The decision granting partial summary judgment in Eagle v. Morgan, Civil Action No. 11-4303, (E.D.