The GT Alert — Massachusetts Courts Tie the Very Existence of ‘Trade Secrets’ to Your Business Practices was prepared by David G. Thomas, James P. Ponsetto and Kurt A. Kappes. Companies must take “reasonable measures” to protect trade secret information in the event the company needs to protect it through the Massachusetts Court System. Failing… Continue Reading
The GT Alert — New Bill Seeks to Combat Theft of Trade Secrets, Protect Jobs was prepared by Johnine P. Barnes and Mariana Gaxiola. On April 29, 2014, Senator Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced legislation to provide a federal cause of action to curtail the estimated $160 billion to $480 billion… Continue Reading
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently denied a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that a former employee had misappropriated trade secrets when he left to work for a competitor, and granted the defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment. The case provides a useful overview of the evidence needed to support a violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).
In California, it is well established that non-compete provisions are unenforceable, subject to certain statutory exceptions. But what about non-compete provisions that are ambiguous as to their protection of confidential information or trade secrets? Recently, when faced with such a provision, one California federal court narrowly construed the provision to find it enforceable.
To borrow from a classic song: There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.” Last Thursday, a federal district judge sentenced a former DuPont employee to 18 months in jail, following a guilty plea of stealing trade secrets relating to DuPont’s Kevlar products. A few weeks earlier, the U.S. Attorney for New York’s Southern District… Continue Reading