Posts by: Editorial Board

Does the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine Apply Under the DTSA? It Depends on the State.

Posted on

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) went into effect in May 2016. Since then, federal courts have largely adhered to existing law in their respective states to determine whether the inevitable disclosure doctrine applies to DTSA claims. This article provides a sampling of existing opinions that have either permitted or rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine under DTSA claims, broken down by state.[1]  READ MORE →

FOIA Exemption 4 Tightens the Spigot on Public Disclosure of Bottled Water Sourcing Records

Posted on

The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) grants the public a powerful right of access to records in the possession of federal agencies.  However, this right of access is subject to nine distinct exemptions.  As demonstrated by D.C. District Court Judge Trevor N. McFadden’s opinion in Story of Stuff Project v. United States Forest Service, it is relatively easy for the federal government to withhold records under Exemption 4 which protects “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person” which are “privileged or confidential.”  5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). READ MORE →

Possession is not 9/10ths of the Law in Continuing Use Misappropriation Under DTSA

Posted on

When Congress enacted the DTSA on May 11, 2016, it left open the issue of whether the DTSA would apply to misappropriation that occurred prior.  As we previously reported, many federal district courts have since found that it does apply if there were continuing acts of misappropriation after enactment of the statute.  Now, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in, upholding a district court’s dismissal of a DTSA claim where the plaintiff failed to allege a continued act of misappropriation after the date of enactment. READ MORE →

One Step Away from Uniform: Taking a Closer Look at Massachusetts’ New Trade Secrets Law

Posted on

As we reported in August, Massachusetts became the penultimate state to enact the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), leaving New York as the sole remaining holdout. Massachusetts’ new law, which took effect October 1, 2018, significantly expanded the state’s existing trade secrets law by broadening protections for trade secret owners and narrowing the scope of noncompete agreements. As we reported earlier this month, the new law does not apply retroactively even if the violation is ongoing in nature.

READ MORE →

Intent to Use is Sticking “Pointe” In Denial of Preliminary Injunction

Posted on

On October 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied motions for injunctive relief in a case involving trade secrets allegedly stolen by a departing consultant using his personal computer to sync with the company’s Dropbox.  This case established (1) Massachusetts’ newly enacted Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) does not apply retroactively even if the violation is continuing; and (2) intent to use a trade secret is a hurdle which Plaintiffs can struggle to show where there is not evidence of actual use and the defendant takes steps at remediation. READ MORE →

Trade Secret Sparks Beer Brawl in the Ninth Circuit: When is Your Word Enough?

Posted on

On September 13, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on an issue of first impression in Anheuser-Busch Cos. v. James Clark, No. 17-15591 (9th Cir. 2015).

Anheuser-Busch filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California against former employee James Clark, alleging that he violated California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) by unlawfully disseminating a document containing its beer recipe for use in a separate class action suit. To support its allegations, the company submitted a declaration stating that the leaked document contained “confidential information related to Plaintiffs’ brewing processes, including but not limited to, information regarding a variety of analytical characteristics for each of [Plaintiffs’] products.” READ MORE →

In the Ninth Circuit, Your Fate (and Documents) May Not Be Sealed

Posted on

Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California handed down a strongly worded order denying a motion to seal alleged trade secret information, and sanctioning counsel for defendant for the frivolous request. The order is a stern reminder to the sanctioned attorneys and to trade secret litigants in federal court generally that federal litigation is traditionally a public process, and that parties seeking to remove documents from the public’s access often face an uphill battle in order to do so. READ MORE →

New York Court Takes Saved Cost Damages off the Table

Posted on

Plaintiffs in New York state trade secret actions face a new limitation on their damages claims, according to a May 3, 2018 decision from the state’s Court of Appeals.  The 4-3 opinion settles a split in New York state case law.  Going forward, compensatory damages for trade secrets misappropriation are limited to the amount actually lost by the plaintiff, and cannot extend to the “hypothetical” amount saved by the alleged infringer on research or development. READ MORE →

Campaigning for Protection of Political Trade Secrets

Posted on

As widely reported, on April 20, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) kicked off a twelve count lawsuit against a number of entities and individuals, including the Russian Federation, General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (“GRU”), WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Donald J. Trump, Jr., and other political foes.  Amongst the wide swath of allegations, which include everything from computer fraud to RICO conspiracy, are allegations that the defendants misappropriated trade secrets in violation of both the DTSA and the Washington D.C. Uniform Trade Secrets Act. READ MORE →

Home Remedies for Politically Charged IP Theft

Posted on

In January of this year, Chinese wind turbine manufacturer Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd. was convicted of stealing trade secrets from U.S. company AMSC Inc. The theft caused AMSC, more than $800 million in losses and forced the company to lay off more than half its global work force. Sinovel’s sentencing—which could include fines exceeding $1 billion and a multiyear probationary period—is scheduled for June 2018. READ MORE →