Posts by: Editorial Board

To Sue for Theft of Your Trade Secrets in California, You May First Have to Give Them Away

Posted on

California trade secret litigators likely know all about California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210.  Those that don’t, should.

Section 2019.210 provides that before commencing discovery in a trade secret litigation, the party alleging trade secret misappropriation must identify the allegedly stolen trade secret “with reasonable particularity.”

For plaintiffs, this rule is no joke.  It has sent many a plaintiff back to the drawing board trying, again and again, to adequately identify their stolen “special sauce.” It can be supremely frustrating. READ MORE →

Of Documents and Dumpsters: The Sixth Circuit Affirms Convictions for Theft of Hybrid Car Secrets from GM

Posted on

Last month, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions of co-conspirator couple Yu Qin and Shanshan Du, who were convicted in 2012 of trade secrets theft.  A jury in the Eastern District of Michigan had found that Du absconded with GM’s proprietary documents, passing them to Qin, who then used them to start his own business.

The trade secrets comprised the specially engineered and highly complex “motor control source code” of a hybrid car—the program that directs how and when the electric motor of a hybrid car runs.  The jury bought the government’s argument that the hybrid car secrets were on their way to China via Qin and Du, both engineers. READ MORE →

FOURTH OF JULY EDITION [FROM THE ARCHIVES]: Family Fireworks: Plot to Steal Client Lists Goes Up in Smoke

Posted on

As Americans head for the beach or the barbecue to celebrate the Fourth of July (many with a bolstered sense of patriotism following the United States’ valiant World Cup efforts), Trade Secrets Watch marks this Independence Day by pulling an explosive story from its archives.

Pyro Spectaculars North, Inc. v. Souza is a case that’s full of fireworks—literal and figurative—as a family pyrotechnics business broke apart, with one member starting a rival company, apparently armed with a USB and a hard drive of purloined client lists and other company files. You can read our full post below the jump.

We wish all our readers and safe and happy holiday weekend. We’ll return to our regular blogging and tweeting schedules on Monday. READ MORE →

ANOTHER WIN FOR ALEYNIKOV: Judge Tosses Evidence in Ex-Programmer’s Latest Case

Posted on

Sergey Aleynikov fought the law, and the law lost—again.

Judge Ronald A. Zweibel of the New York Supreme Court has thrown out a raft of evidence originally gathered by the FBI for federal prosecution and later offered by state authorities attempting to prosecute Aleynikov for trade secrets theft. Finding no probable cause for Aleynikov’s original arrest, the court also faulted the feds for turning evidence over to the Manhattan district attorney instead of giving it back to Aleynikov. READ MORE →

North Carolina Enacts Criminal Penalties for Disclosure of Fracking Trade Secrets

Posted on

North Carolina is officially open for fracking, after lifting a ban on the practice—and enacting criminal penalties for spilling trade secrets associated with it. With passage of the Energy Modernization Act, North Carolina joins the growing ranks of states that have legislated to protect confidential fracking information.

North Carolina’s new law prompted us to update our chart summarizing the key provisions of similar legislation in other states. It can be seen here.  READ MORE →

CYBER-SYMBOLISM? DOJ Announces First-Of-Its-Kind Prosecution of State Actors—But Does It Matter?

Posted on

The U.S. Justice Department has charged members of the Chinese military with allegedly engaging in economic espionage against American companies.  It’s the first time that the United States has leveled such charges against agents of a foreign country.  But with the accused in China, is this more bluster than bombshell?  Or are actual prosecutions possible?

A federal grand jury empanelled at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (where most of the target companies are located) returned an indictment against five members of a Chinese military unit in Shanghai, accusing them of conspiring to hack into the computer systems of six American companies. READ MORE →

THINGS TO AVOID WHEN YOU LEAVE YOUR JOB: Using drone trade secrets to blackmail your former employer

Posted on

Trade secrets cases in the employment context usually provide valuable lessons on what not to do when leaving a job.  The recent conviction of Stephen Marty Ward by a Washington federal jury imparts one such lesson:  when you are terminated after working on a project for the Navy involving drones, don’t threaten to blackmail your former employer with trade secret disclosure.

Mr. Ward learned this lesson the hard way.  He worked as a contract employee for a Boeing subsidiary (Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, Washington) that contracted with the U.S. Navy to develop unmanned aircraft systems, or drones.  Mr. Ward worked as a technical writer preparing maintenance manuals for one of the drones. READ MORE →

Upcoming Event

Posted on

Tuesday, May 13, 2014, 8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.


Orrick’s New York IP Breakfast Briefing: Update on Brewing IP Legislation

Orrick’s IP Group is launching a quarterly breakfast seminar series in New York to provide a forum for professionals in the IP community to learn about and discuss the latest developments in IP law.  The first meeting will focus on: READ MORE →

NEW MASSACHUSETTS BILL: Promoting “Growth and Opportunity” or Poisoning the Business Environment?

Posted on

On April 10, 2014, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick proposed a bill entitled “An Act to Promote Growth and Opportunity.”  Under this lengthy bill, Massachusetts would finally adopt the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, to which only it and New York currently do not adhere.  But the provisions of the bill relating to non-competition agreements are what have received the most attention from the businesses community.

Under the proposed legislation, with the aim of increasing mobility of labor, non-competition agreements between Massachusetts employers and employees or independent contractors would be impermissible and void: READ MORE →