Join Crowell & Moring at the American Intellectual Property Law Association in hosting its annual Trade Secret Law Summit on March 2-3 in Atlanta, GA. It will cover everything from the fundamentals of trade secret protection to protecting confidential information from cyber-attacks. Registration is now open; please click here to register at AIPLA.org. Crowell partner,
DTSA UPDATE: Tips for Santa to Maintain Trade Secrets at the North Pole
1. Clearly label Christmas cards as “Confidential” if these contain secret wishes.
2. Amend Confidentiality Agreements and Employee Manual to include the required Whistleblower language – those elves have rights.
3. Have robust exit interviews with all departing elves, reminding them of their obligations to keep “reindeer games” secret.
4. Insist that expert toy makers are warned not to reveal secret information while enjoying (too much) mulled wine with ‘Happy Holidays’-industry peers.
5. Further restrict access to the Sleigh Packing Room with candy cane key fobs.Continue Reading DTSA UPDATE: Tips for Santa to Maintain Trade Secrets at the North Pole
Former Executives Seek Sanctions Against Company And Its Counsel For Alleged Failure To Disclose Insurance In Trade Secrets Dispute
Former executives, who are accused of theft of confidential information, trade secrets, and other intellectual property, have asked a federal court to impose severe sanctions against their old employer and its counsel, including dismissal of the case, for their alleged failure to disclose the existence of insurance that could have covered the executives’ defense costs.
In May 2015, in Summer Infant, Inc. v. Bramson, No. 15-cv-218 (D.R.I.), Summer Infant, a company that designs and sells baby products, filed suit against its former CEO and five other executives, alleging that they stole company information to launch a competing business.
As part of Summer Infant’s July 2015 initial disclosures, the company stated that “there are no insurance agreements of the nature described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv).” Under Rule 26, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties “any insurance agreement [that] may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv).
Continue Reading Former Executives Seek Sanctions Against Company And Its Counsel For Alleged Failure To Disclose Insurance In Trade Secrets Dispute
Texas Supreme Court Issues First Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act Decision
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday issued its first decision interpreting the recently enacted Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), holding that a defendant’s corporate representative does not have an absolute right to remain in the courtroom while a plaintiff’s trade secrets are discussed. In re M-I L.L.C. d/ba/ MI-Swaco, No. 14-1045 (Tex. Jan. 13, 2016). The Court’s decision is significant both because it is the first time the Texas Supreme Court has addressed the relatively new legislation (TUTSA was passed in late 2013), but also because its signals the Court’s willingness to interpret TUTSA expansively.
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Issues First Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act Decision
Recent Case Highlights Circuit Split on Important Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Question
Another court has rejected the broader interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA” or “the Act”) as applying to employees who exceed their authorized use. A recent decision in Minnesota highlights the issue of whether the Act imposes civil liability on employees who have permission to access their employers’ data, but do so with a wrongful purpose. See TripleTree, LLC v. Walcker No. 16-609, 2016 WL 2621954 (D. Minn. May 6, 2016).
The court considered this question in the context of a trade secrets case. A former employee of TripleTree, an investment banking company, was discovered to have accessed the Company’s confidential information and to have engaged in a series of suspicious activities just prior to leaving the Company for a competitor. Id. at *1. TripleTree filed claims against its former employee for, among other things, violating the CFAA and the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Id. at 2.
The court sua sponte considered whether it should dismiss TripleTree’s CFAA claim. Id. at *3. The CFAA sanctions a person who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . information from a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(c). Any person who suffers from a violation of the Act may bring a civil claim for damages. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). As an employee of TripleTree, the Defendant was permitted to access the Company’s confidential information. The court considered whether the Defendant’s malicious intent in accessing the information transformed an otherwise lawful act (using the Company’s computers) into a violation of the CFAA.Continue Reading Recent Case Highlights Circuit Split on Important Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Question
Santa’s 10 Considerations for Maintaining Trade Secrets at the North Pole
Santa’s 10 considerations for maintaining trade secrets at the North Pole:
- Restrict access to facility by choosing remote location.
- Make the Elves sign Confidentiality Agreements as part of the hiring process.
- Have robust exit interviews with all departing elves, reminding them of their obligations to keep “reindeer games” secrets.
- Insist that gift wrapping specialists with
Theft of Trade Secret and Flouting of Court’s Injunction Results in Arrest Warrants
On October 26, a U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California issued an arrest warrant for two parties in a trade secrets dispute involving a water-splitting technology and formula. The two parties violated a court order from August which required them, among other things, to appear in court on October 26, and cease using the Internet to post messages regarding their alleged knowledge of plaintiff’s trade secret.
Continue Reading Theft of Trade Secret and Flouting of Court’s Injunction Results in Arrest Warrants