Employee Misappropriation

On May 10, 2019, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an opinion adopting a “narrow approach” in interpreting Section 1030(a)(2)(C) of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Section 1030(a)(2)(C) imposes liability on a person who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains… information from any protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. §

A federal district court in San Jose recently ruled, in WeRide Corp., et al. v. Kun Huang, et al., that employee non-solicitation agreements are “void” under California Business & Professions Code section 16600 because such agreements are an invalid restraint on employment. This is the second federal court opinion this year that has barred

The Third Circuit recently held that a former employer’s alleged surreptitious monitoring of a departed employee’s Facebook messages was not enough to invoke the unclean hands doctrine in Scherer Design Grp., LLC v. Ahead Eng’g LLC, No. 18-2835, 2019 WL 937176 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2019). SDG, an engineering firm, became suspicious when several

A recent decision from the Eighth Circuit serves as a reminder that trade secret holders must not sleep on their rights when presented with information that would put a reasonable person on notice of potential misappropriation. See CMI Roadbuilding, Inc. v. Iowa Parts, Inc., No. 18-1075, 2019 WL 1474022 (8th Cir. Apr. 4, 2019).

Autonomous vehicle technology, while still young, is already a major catalyst of trade secrets-related litigation. In 2018, Uber settled a lawsuit alleging theft of self-driving technology trade secrets from Waymo (Google’s self-driving car spinoff) for $245 million. With the future of the automotive market (and trillions of dollars) at stake, self-driving technology trade secrets are

In the Third Circuit, common law generally governs the use of restrictive covenants. States in this Circuit employ a reasonability standard to determine whether a restrictive covenant is enforceable. In New Jersey, even if a covenant is found to be reasonable, it may be limited in its application by: geographical area, period of enforceability or

States within the Seventh Circuit employ the reasonability standard used in many other circuits to determine whether a restrictive covenant is enforceable. Two of these states, Illinois and Indiana, apply a common law framework but largely disfavor such covenants as a restraint on trade. Wisconsin’s restrictive covenant statute focuses on the reasonableness of the agreement

Each of the states within the Eleventh Circuit governs the use of restrictive covenants through statutes. Generally, both Florida and Alabama permit the use of restrictive covenants where the restrictive covenant is “reasonably necessary” to protect a legitimate business interest, but the legitimate business interest requirement is applied differently in both jurisdictions. Alabama law prohibits

Unlike in the Ninth Circuit, in states comprising the Second Circuit, common law generally governs the use of restrictive covenants. Still, many of the specific factors for analysis in these states will be familiar, given the widely accepted “reasonability” standard for adjudicating the propriety of such agreements. Both the Vermont and N.Y. State Legislatures have

We recently shared a California federal court decision in Barker v. Insight Global, LLC, et al. that relied on Section 16600 of California’s Business and Professional Code to hold that, in California, non-solicitation provisions in employee agreements are presumptively invalid. The California statute governing restrictive covenants provides that “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, every