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