Photo of Crowell & Moring

Crowell & Moring

Subscribe to Crowell & Moring's Posts

 

 

 

In addition to conventional warfare, it was recently confirmed by an arm of the Ukraine Ministry of Defense that it hacked trade secrets from a Russian state nuclear utility, and then leaked the trade secrets to a public website to harm the utility’s commercial prospects. Such “hack and leak” operations have been done before by nation-affiliated hackers to attempt to influence political activities of other nations, but this may be the first operation of this type concerning technical trade secrets during warfare. Although the economic impact from this particular operation may be difficult to gauge at this time, this hack and leak of nation state-affiliated company trade secrets may be a sign of things to come in future armed conflicts.
Continue Reading A New Battlefront: Ukraine Resistance Includes Leaks of Russian Trade Secrets

Med-Abstract-technology-background-security-concept-GettyImages-618950118

Crowell & Moring presented a webinar discussing the most influential trade secret cases from 2021 along with new legal developments, including non-compete legislation and trade secret maintenance.

Partner Astor Heaven and Counsel Raija Horstman kicked off the conversation to discuss modern trade secret protection under the DTSA and the biggest damages from jury verdicts in 2021. Counsel Christine Hawes gave an overview of recent federal and state non-compete legislation, and Associate Dalton Hughes wrapped up the webinar by covering new legal implications for maintaining and identifying trade secrets.
Continue Reading Crowell & Moring Webinar Recap: “2021 Trade Secrets Year in Review and What Lies Ahead”

It’s the time of year again when we are taking a look at 2021’s top ten most read posts. This year, we witnessed an increased risk of trade secret theft due to the Great Resignation, proposed trade secret misappropriation penalties as a result of Chinese government trade secret espionage, and the expansion of ITC involvement in trade secret misappropriation. Take a look at our top ten posts that highlight these key developments.
Continue Reading The Year’s Most Popular Posts

On October 29, 2021, the District of Delaware allowed Park Lawn Corporation to continue with its trade secret claims against fellow cemetery management competitor, PlotBox, Inc., holding that the competitor only needed to have a “reason to know” improper means were used to access alleged trade secrets, based on the position of the individual feeding them the secrets.

Both Park Lawn and PlotBox develop technological solutions to manage cemetery plot placement methods, using software to facilitate mapping of gravestones electronically. This software helps automate cemetery design plans and expedites managerial tasks. The lawsuit also states that Park Lawn planned to license the trade secrets in the software to others in the industry. This plan was eventually disrupted by the Chief Executive Officer of Park Lawn, who was allegedly feeding the trade secret information to PlotBox, which also tried to hire on Park Lawn’s Chief Technology Officer. Park Lawn sued under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”).
Continue Reading Cemetery Company’s Trade Secret Claims Survive Motion to Dismiss by Reasonable Interference of Misappropriation after CEO Fed Competitor Information

On November 23rd, Pfizer filed a complaint against former employee Chun Xiao “Sherry” Li in a California federal court alleging that Li pilfered over 12,000 files worth of critical documents and trade secrets. U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted Pfizer’s motion for a temporary restraining order barring Li from using, disclosing or transmitting any confidential information or trade secrets owned by Pfizer, destroying or altering any of that information or destroying any devices storing the information. Li also must return any hard copy documents containing Pfizer’s confidential information or trade secrets, Judge Bencivengo said.

Hired as associate director of statistics in Pfizer’s global product development group at Pfizer’s facility in La Jolla, California in 2006, Li sought greener pastures at Xencor Inc. in 2021. Perhaps in the spirit of the upcoming holiday season, Li treated herself to a parting gift of what Pfizer calls its clinical “playbook.” Its complaint also cited misappropriation of documents containing operational goals, goals for various drugs including cancer drugs, clinical development plans and clinical trial techniques.
Continue Reading Bad Medicine: Pfizer Files Complaint to Halt Potential COVID-Related Trade Secret Misappropriation

A recent case from the Sixth Circuit, addressing a source code agreement, highlights the importance of carefully specifying what happens to source code (and the trade secrets therein) after breach of the agreement.  In Epazz, Inc. v. National Quality Assurance USA, Inc.,[1] the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that a software licensee did not misappropriate a trade secret of the licensor when the licensee acquired the source code from an escrow agent, because the plain terms of the license agreement between the two authorized the release if the licensor breached. Further, the licensee did not commit misappropriation by hiring another provider to maintain and further develop the source code, where the license provided “the right . . . to use the . . . Material” upon breach of the agreement.
Continue Reading Untangling a Messy Dispute: No Misappropriation for Trade Secret Use Authorized by Agreement

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a preliminary injunction prohibiting a former distributor and its parent company from selling a spine implant device that incorporated trade secret information. Plaintiff Life Spine, Inc. had created a device to correct spinal spacing issues during surgery. Life Spine contracted with Defendant Aegis Spine to distribute the device only to medical facilities nationwide and to keep Life Spine’s confidential information secret and use the confidential information only in furtherance of the business relationship. However, Life Spine alleged that Aegis Spine passed confidential details, such as component dimensions to fractions of a millimeter of the device, to Aegis Spine’s parent company, who quickly developed a similar device that competed against Life Spine’s device. Life Spine sued Aegis Spine and its parent, alleging that Aegis Spine misappropriated its trade secrets, as well as other contractual and tort claims, and sought a preliminary injunction. Based on findings of trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, the Northern District of Illinois entered a preliminary injunction against Aegis Spine and its business partners from making, marketing, distributing, selling, or obtaining intellectual property rights in the competing device to Life Spine’s device.
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Affirms Trade Secret Protection of Patented Spinal Implant Device

Following a national trend that we previously posted about, Illinois recently passed legislation to further restrict the use of non-compete agreements against low-wage workers.  Under the previous version of the Illinois Freedom to Work Act, employers were prohibited from entering into non-compete agreements with employees making less than $13 per hour.  The new version expands this restriction to include employees earning $75,000 or less and defines “earnings” to include salary, bonus, and other forms of taxable income.  In addition, the amendment prohibits employers from entering into non-solicitation agreements with employees making $45,000 or less annually.
Continue Reading Illinois Law Imposes New Restrictions on Non-Compete Agreements

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