In a dispute over ripped off recipes, counsel for victorious plaintiff Dalmatia Import Group hailed the jury verdict as the first of its kind under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, as we previously reported. Not so fast, sulked the defendants, Dalmatia’s erstwhile manufacturer Lancaster Fine Foods and distributor FoodMatch, in a filing this month. While acknowledging their defeat under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the defendants nevertheless urged the court not to enter judgment under the DTSA.
Harry J. Moren
Harry Moren is a lawyer in Orrick's San Francisco office who specializes in commercial litigation. Harry also counsels corporate policyholders on insurance issues and helps them resolve disputes with their insurers. Harry has advised energy companies on regulatory issues.
Harry writes regularly for several Orrick blogs, including the Policyholder Insider, Trust Anchor (Cybersecurity & Data Privacy), and Trade Secrets Watch. Harry also writes for Orrick’s Weekly Auditor Liability Bulletin and wrote for the Securities Reform Act Litigation Reporter.
Pro bono is an important part of Harry's practice. He advocates for immigrants' rights through individual representations and national policy reform. Harry currently represents a lawful permanent resident facing deportation before the Ninth Circuit. Harry has also successfully represented low-income tenants in partnership with the San Francisco Bar Association’s Justice and Diversity Center.
Prior to joining Orrick, Harry worked on the legal team of Greenpeace International in Amsterdam. As a law student, he interned with the Administrative Law Judge Division of the California Public Utilities Commission in San Francisco.
Before attending law school, Harry developed custom software for e-commerce platforms, enterprise management systems, and call center automation for companies including Amazon, Intel, ADT, Cable & Wireless, and Lucent Technologies.
Harry’s recent representations include:
- Represented Pacific Pulmonary Services in a bad faith action against its D&O insurer in the Northern District of California. Achieved partial summary judgment establishing the insurer's duty to advance defense costs for a False Claims Act investigation. Resolved other claims through settlement.
- Represented biotech entrepreneurs against claims of breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements in arbitration. Achieved a complete defense award.
- Represented Microsoft before the Second Circuit in a high-profile challenge to the federal government's attempt to force Microsoft to turn over a customer's email content stored on a server in Ireland. Achieved a unanimous ruling in favor of Microsoft. (Statement by Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith)
- Represented an education technology company against a breach of contract action in federal court. Resolved through settlement just before trial.
- Represented a restaurant franchisee against its franchisor in arbitration. Won a preliminary injunction to prevent franchisor from closing franchisee's restaurant. Resolved through settlement during discovery.
- Represented telecommunications executives against an SEC enforcement action alleging misstatements related to revenue recognition. Resolved through settlement.
- Advised a major gas and electric public utility on regulatory issues.
- Advised a major construction company on insurance and product liability issues.
- Advised a rideshare technology company on insurance issues.
Posts by: Harry Moren
Intellectual property owners may seek to protect certain information either by obtaining a patent or by maintaining its secrecy. A patent provides strong, exclusive rights for a fixed period of time, generally twenty years. A trade secret may last indefinitely but protection can be lost through independent development, reverse engineering, or failure to maintain secrecy. (We previously published a chart comparing the features of patents and trade secrets.) This article discusses those instances when trade secret protection may be superior to patent protection. READ MORE
Companies get anxious when key employees leave to start new ventures. A company may try to shield itself from the risk of losing confidential information by seeking an injunction preventing its former employees and their new company from using or disclosing trade secrets. However, without sufficient evidence of actual misappropriation or threat of imminent harm, a company may face sanctions for bringing a misappropriation claim in bad faith, as Trade Secrets Watch has previously discussed. Filing or maintaining a premature misappropriation action carries other risks. Currently before the California Supreme Court is a malicious prosecution claim against a law firm for pursuing a meritless misappropriation suit. Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, LLP, No. S228277 (Cal. petition for review granted Oct. 14, 2015). READ MORE
President Obama wants to go where the Supreme Court refused to tread. As part of his cybersecurity and privacy initiatives, which we discussed last week, the President would strengthen the federal anti-hacking provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), including an expansion of activity covered by the statutory phrase “exceeds authorized access.” In so doing, the President would resolve a circuit split between the First, Fifth, Eighth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, on the one hand, and the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, on the other. His reason? “No foreign nation, no hacker, should be able to shut down our networks, steal our trade secrets, or invade the privacy of American families.” READ MORE
Florida may be the Sunshine State but there has been too little illumination into the Florida Legislature’s congressional redistricting process, according to the League of Women Voters of Florida. In 2010, voters amended the state’s constitution to end gerrymandering in advance of the 2012 decennial redistricting. Nevertheless, the day after the Governor approved the Legislature’s 2012 redistricting plan, the League and others challenged the redistricting process as intentionally (and therefore unconstitutionally) favoring the Republican party and incumbents and diluting the voting power of African-American and Hispanic voters. READ MORE