UPDATE – Uniform Trade Secrets Act Preemption: The Debate Continues… With Possible Implications for Punitive Damages?

and Posted on

Just over one year ago, we noted the continued and vibrant debate among state and federal courts over whether the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) preempts other claims based on the misappropriation of information when that information does not qualify as a trade secret.  In that post, we noted that Arizona was one of the states in which the “majority interpretation” had been applied, which is the view that UTSA preempts all common law tort claims based on trade secret misappropriation, whether or not it meets the statutory definition of a trade secret.

READ MORE →

Running Interference: S.D.N.Y. Lays Out Standards for Tortious Interference in Dispute Between Watchmaker and Former Employees

Posted on

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently cleared the way for a Michigan watchmaker to pursue claims for trade secret misappropriation, among other things, against two former employees who left to work with a competitor, but not without first dismissing claims based on tortious interference with contract.

For companies whose business model depends on a key contract (e.g., with a licensor, vendor, or supplier), the biggest worry with departing employees might not be the theft of intellectual property or trade secrets—but rather the loss of the contract or business relationship.
READ MORE →

CONTINENTAL SHIFT: EU Advances Legal Regime Protecting Trade Secrets

Posted on

The European Union appears poised to enact a sweeping new legal regime that would harmonize trade secrets law across all member states.

It’s been a year since we wrote about a new EU proposal to regulate trade secret protection. Then, at the end of November 2013, the EU published its first draft proposal for a Directive on the protection of trade secrets.In May of this year, the Council of the European Union agreed on a revised draft Directive. (In contrast to European Regulations, European Directives do not apply directly as member states’ law, but only give objectives that the Member States must achieve within a specified time limit in order to harmonize their various national rules. This means that, in fact, trade secrets rules will not be “unified” but rather “similar” across the Continent.)

READ MORE →

RUSSIAN WEAPONS: New Amendments to Russia’s Trade Secret Law Target Thieving CEOs and Workers

Posted on

New amendments to Russian law take aim at the theft of trade secrets by employees, with especially tough penalties for thieving CEOs.

The amendments to Russia’s Trade Secret Law became effective October 1, 2014. The goal of these amendments is to increase the protection of trade secrets by stiffening penalties for unauthorized disclosures by employees.
READ MORE →

Justice Hammers International Trade Secrets Hackers

Posted on

A recent Justice Department reorganization of its National Security Division concentrates resources on fighting state-sponsored economic espionage and corporate theft of trade secrets. These strategic changes focus on Justice’s ability to target and prosecute hackers and others who seek to damage national assets by means including economic espionage, proliferation, and cyber-based national security threats.
READ MORE →

New Strings Attached: LinkedIn Contacts Are Now Trade Secrets?

Posted on

From a birds-eye view, Cellular Accessories For Less, Inc. v. Trinitas, LLC appears to be a typical dispute between an employer and its former employee. However, a closer look reveals an issue new to the world of trade secrets—specifically, do LinkedIn contacts qualify as trade secrets? For now, they may: a federal judge in the Central District of California denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment last month, finding there were triable issues of material fact surrounding the question whether LinkedIn contacts were protectable trade secrets. READ MORE →

WORLD SERIES EDITION: These Trade Secrets Are Going, Going, Gone

Posted on

Ah, October: the time of crisp fall air, brightly colored leaves, and pumpkin spice-flavored everything. And, of course, the World Series quest that can unite a city—or, in the case of Orrick’s San Francisco and Washington, D.C. offices, give rise to a friendly wager (sorry, D.C.!). In honor of the baseball playoffs, we take a look at some trade secret issues related to our national pastime.
READ MORE →

New CA Law Gives Refineries Broad Authority to Designate Maintenance Records Trade Secrets

Posted on

Ah, what would corporations give to be able to have trade secret protections for their information simply by declaring it a trade secret? For oil refineries in California, that dream may now be a reality.

On September 20, 2014, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1300 into law. The bill requires oil refineries in California to report information about all scheduled shutdowns and other maintenance for the upcoming calendar year to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health by September 15 of each year. The bill also expands the definition of trade secrets as it applies to oil refineries and permits oil refineries to identify as trade secrets “all or a portion of the information submitted” under the bill if they believe that the information “may involve the release of a trade secret.”
READ MORE →

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 →

Bigger in Texas? High Court to Decide Scope of Protection for Third Party Trade Secrets in Civil Discovery

Posted on

On August 22, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court ordered oral argument in In re: Magnum Hunter Resources Corp., a case concerning the discoverability of third-party trade secrets documents in civil cases. When should such documents be produced? And who gets to see them?

A simple summary of the facts of Magnum Hunter are as follows:

Party A hires Law Firm to help it negotiate a contract with Party B regarding an oil and natural gas venture. Party A and Party B ultimately reach an agreement on the venture and enter into a contract that says that Party B will provide to Party A all reports related to the venture upon request, provided that Party A agrees to treat such reports as confidential information.

READ MORE →