Defendants may be entitled to review proprietary software code used in the prosecution’s expert probabilistic DNA analysis, according to a New Jersey appeals court in New Jersey v. Pickett.

In 2017, defendant Corey Pickett and an accomplice were arrested and charged with first degree murder after they allegedly fired weapons into a crowd, wounding one victim and killing another.  In the course of the arrest, the police discovered a revolver and a ski mask.  Finding the samples inappropriate for traditional DNA analysis, swabs from the revolver and ski mask were sent to Cybergenetics Corp.’s Laboratory to use its TrueAllele software to run probabilistic genotyping analysis on the samples.  The TrueAllele software determined that Pickett was the source of the DNA on the revolver and ski mask.

Continue Reading New Jersey Appeals Court Rules that Defendant Can Review the Proprietary DNA Analysis Software That Linked Him to the Crime

The reverse engineering of the mRNA sequence for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine … a good example  

Recently, the reverse engineering of trade secrets made headline news when it became known that Stanford scientists had published a previously unknown mRNA sequence for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, reverse engineered from droplets left in used vials.

Continue Reading Reverse Engineering of Trade Secrets: An important issue you should consider when setting up your innovation protection strategy

Recent confirmations of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) senior leadership and enforcement actions coupled with the continued tough stance that the Biden administration is taking towards China signal that the DOJ’s China Initiative will likely remain a strategic priority. Announced in 2018, the China Initiative, led by the DOJ’s National Security Division, seeks to counter national security threats presented by the government of China by investigating and prosecuting economic espionage, trade secret theft, hacking, and other economic crimes. The China Initiative also focuses on protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure against external threats through foreign direct investment and supply chain compromises, as well as combatting covert efforts to influence the American public and policymakers without proper transparency. According to DOJ, “[a]bout 80 percent of all economic espionage prosecutions brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) allege conduct that would benefit the Chinese state, and there is at least some nexus to China in around 60 percent of all trade secret theft cases.”

Continue Reading DOJ Appointments at the Top and Recent Enforcement Actions Signal That Its China Initiative Will Likely Remain Intact

Crowell & Moring invites you to attend the webinar, Trade Secrets Investigations, taking place on Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 1:00 pm ET.

Join Raija Horstman, Caroline Brown, Astor Heaven, Steve Byers, and Christine Hawes for a discussion offering practical guidance on steps throughout the lifecycle of a trade secrets theft investigation, from detection to preparing for litigation, including criminal enforcement. Trade secrets and other confidential business information come in many forms, and for many businesses are its most valuable assets. Knowing how to detect and investigate potential instances of trade-secrets theft, whether attributable to insider or outside threats, is therefore critical, as is understanding how to respond to competitor allegations that your company possesses stolen trade secrets.

To register, click here.

This webinar is part of a four day webinar series: Investigations: Readiness and Response Webinar Series. To view the full agenda, click here.

 

Simple facts…

In 2018, an employee requested access to and a copy of all their personal data processed by the employer during the past decade (this is pursuant to the data subject’s right of access enshrined in art. 15 (1) and (3) of the European General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”)). The employee considered the response unsatisfying and filed a complaint with the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“DPA”). The DPA issued a decision on February 9, 2021 (the “Decision”).

Continue Reading Invoking Trade Secrets to Block a Request to Access Personal Data under the GDPR: A “Threat” Has to Be Clearly Demonstrated

In an opinion first issued in June 2020 and modified in October 2020, the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas granted summary judgment in a trade secret dispute based on plaintiff’s failure to present any facts that defendants had access or exposure to plaintiff’s claimed trade secrets.  Josh Malone designed a device that fills and seals water balloons.  Kendall Harter did the same.  Mr. Malone filed a patent.  Mr. Harter accused Mr. Malone of stealing his water balloon filling design.  According to Mr. Harter and KBIDC Investments, the company that acquired Mr. Harter’s company, Mr. Malone came up with his patented product by stealing the trade secrets belonging to Mr. Harter and then KBIDC Investments.  So, KBDIC Investments sued Mr. Malone and Zuru Toys, which acquired an interest in Mr. Malone’s “Bunch O’ Balloons” product for trade secret misappropriation. Continue Reading Bunch O’ Balloons Trade Secret Dispute Results in Bunch O’ Appeals

Tips for European employers on how to protect company trade secrets.

7 to 12 years. According to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study, this is the average amount of time spent by an employee with any one European Union employer. However, in some countries, regions and sectors, employees move around more frequently than this, and the current COVID-19 pandemic will also have had an impact on these numbers.

In any event, if one of your employees leaves, you do not want your company’s trade secrets and other confidential information to leave with them.

Continue Reading Employees may come and go. But will your trade secrets follow them?

On March 13, 2021, borrowing from California Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210 (which requires a plaintiff to “identify. . . trade secret[s] with reasonable particularity” before it can obtain discovery on those trade secrets), a Northern District of California judge narrowed trade secret claims asserted under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) due to the plaintiff’s failure to specifically identify most of its asserted trade secrets prior to discovery.  Although not an explicit requirement under federal law, the Court reasoned that the disclosure requirement served to prevent plaintiffs from getting discovery and then using that discovery to “cleverly specify whatever happens to be there as having been trade secrets stolen from plaintiff.”  The decision could be significant for trade secret litigants going forward.

Continue Reading Federal Court Imports California Trade Secret Disclosure Rule and Narrows DTSA Claim

What does it take to sufficiently plead trade secret claims under the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act?

In Lard-Vid, LLC and Visual Image Display UK, Ltd. v. Ground Support Labs LLC et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 323, at *15 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Feb. 26, 2021), the Court addressed exactly this issue and dismissed plaintiffs’ trade secret claims for failure to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the elements of the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act.

Continue Reading New Jersey Superior Court Tosses Trade Secret Claims for Failure to Plead with Sufficient Specificity Under New Jersey Trade Secrets Act