Crowell & Moring invites you to attend the fifth installment of our Trade Secrets Webinar Series – The Revolving Door of Autonomous Vehicle Talent: Managing Employee Access to Trade Secrets & Facilitating Robust Investigation of Safety Issues, taking place on Tuesday, May 12th at 02:00 pm (EDT).

Autonomous Vehicle (“AV”) developers have been aggressively working to safeguard their vital design documents and data, and have increasingly relied on lawsuits to protect their proprietary information and to prevent such information from reaching their competitors as human talent continues to revolve through the AV industry. Given the increasing popularity of self-driving technology, AV developers should remain vigilant in protecting the trade secrets governing their autonomous vehicle programs and should be sure to implement sound policies for retrieving data upon employee departure.

Join Crowell & Moring attorneys Cheryl Falvey, Rukiya Mohamed, and Paul Mathis for a live discussion on trade secret and liability issues unique to AV developers as well as best practices.

To register, please click here.
Continue Reading Please Join Us for the Fifth Installment of our 2020 Webinar Series: The Revolving Door of Autonomous Vehicle Talent

Are non-competes still enforceable in middle of the unprecedented economic disruption caused by COVID-19? Many employers have reacted to the business impact of COVID-19 by downsizing and laying off employees, some of whom signed non-compete agreements or restrictive covenants to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests, including its trade secrets and confidential information. Those same businesses now are left wondering whether those non-compete agreements are enforceable in the wake of massive unemployment triggered by the pandemic.

The answer to this question is complex, and depends on state law, public policy, and the terms of the specific agreements. Each state scrutinizes non-competes and restrictive covenants differently and, therefore, the answer may be different depending on where the business and employee are located or the agreement’s choice of law provision.
Continue Reading Non-Compete Agreements and Restrictive Covenants During COVID-19

When does a cause of action come close enough to a trade secret claim to become preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”)? CUTSA preempts statutory and common law claims “based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.” In other words, with some exceptions, claims predicated on trade secret misappropriation allegations may only be asserted through a CUTSA claim.

California courts have articulated two different CUTSA preemption tests: (1) the “common nucleus” test and (2) the “dependence” test. In many cases, the two tests will yield the same result. Sometimes, however, the tests will produce divergent outcomes.
Continue Reading Two Tests for Trade Secret Preemption under California Law

On April 21, 2020, Lex Machina released the third iteration of its annual trade secret litigation report (request the report here). Based on data from federal district court filings in Lex Machina practice areas from 2010 – 2019, the report reveals several interesting items worth highlighting.

First, trade secret cases increased by about 30% between 2015 and 2017. This is no surprise given the May 2016 passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act – the first federal statute directed at trade secrets. But, since 2017, the increase in trade secret filings has leveled off, with roughly the same number of cases in 2017, 2018, and 2019 (around 1400 in each year). Remarkably, the number of cases in these three years is within five of each other.

Second, the report provided stats for the other common causes of actions pled in trade secret cases.
Continue Reading Lex Machina Releases New Trade Secret Litigation Report

On April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court granted cert in Van Buren v. United States, to resolve an important circuit split over the meaning of “authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). This is the Court’s first foray into analyzing the precise contours of CFAA liability. Van Buren may have far-reaching implications for any individual or business operating in the digital domain, as the scope of civil and criminal liability under the CFAA can impact just about any sort of relationship involving access to computer systems, whether it be employer-employee relationships or third-party relationships.

The CFAA was enacted in 1986 as a first-of-its-kind statute designed to combat computer-related crimes, and has become an important and powerful tool for not only for the government but any business seeking to protect its intellectual property and computer systems. The CFAA imposes criminal liability on any person who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization” or “exceeds authorized access” and, in doing so, obtains information from any protected computer. The CFAA also provides a civil cause of action for similar conduct. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2), 1030(a)(4), 1030(a)(5)(B)-(C).
Continue Reading “Authorized Access”: The Supreme Court’s First Foray Into The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

In an effort to further combat the international theft of intellectual property, the U.S. government has taken multiple steps to restrict certain companies’ ability to operate within the United States and to prevent those companies from profiting off of their illegal activities. The governmental activity also underscored the increasingly important role that tech companies have in the administration’s national security policies.

Earlier this year, the President signed into law. H.R. 4998, the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (‘the Legislation”), which prohibits certain Federal subsidies from being used to purchase communications equipment or services from Huawei and other providers that are deemed to pose a risk to national security.
Continue Reading Tech Companies, National Security, Trade Secrets, and the Increased Controls on the Export of Emerging Technologies

The COVID-19 pandemic presents unique and unprecedented challenges to the ongoing need to protect confidential information and trade secrets. With entire workforces working remotely, employees are increasingly relying on video services to remain connected, but the increasing prevalence of video services does not come without problems. For example, Zoom Video Communications Inc. (“Zoom”) is a videoconferencing app which allows multiple people to be in the same “virtual room” at once and which has seen an uptick of users since the COVID-19 crisis. While Zoom permits employees to remain in contact, it and other video services also permit employees to use and share confidential information and trade secrets from their home. Now more than ever companies need to be extra vigilant in what platforms they allow their employees to use and how their employees use the platforms.
Continue Reading Is the Platform You’re Using a Potential Threat to Protecting Your Trade Secret?

Coronavirus-related emergency measures may limit litigants’ ability to protect trade secrets in state court. State courts are drastically altering their operations in response to the novel coronavirus pandemic, including closing courthouses, continuing trials and other deadlines, suspending rules requiring paper filings, and encouraging, if not requiring, telephone and videoconferencing.

New York State, which as of the publishing of this piece was the state with the highest number of confirmed cases in the United States, has imposed some especially restrictive measures for litigants in state court. New York’s Chief Administrative Law Judge, has restricted all non-essential filings (and has also postponed all “nonessential” services). New York courts are only accepting filings pertaining to emergency matters, which the Administrative Order defines to include criminal matters; family court; certain Supreme Court matters including guardianship matters, emergency election law applications, and extreme risk protection orders; and civil housing matters, including landlord lockouts, serious code violations, serious repair orders, and applications for post-eviction relief. The Order is available here. Filings in most civil suits are, accordingly, restricted.
Continue Reading Coronavirus Related Restrictions on Emergency Trade Secrets Filings in New York

A recent decision by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York reinforces that owners of trade secret computer programs should carefully approach copyright registration in order to maintain both copyright and trade secret protection. This includes being conscious of copyright regulations allowing the partial and redacted registration of computer code with the Copyright Office.

In a recent manifestation of this principle, Capricorn Management Systems accused GEICO of misappropriating Capricorn’s trade secret source code for medical billing software. Last week, the court granted GEICO’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the code was not entitled to trade secret protection, in part because it was registered, unredacted, with the U.S. Copyright Office, and was therefore publicly available.
Continue Reading GEICO Earns Victory at Intersection Between Copyright and Trade Secret Law Covering Source Code

Recently the District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision that illustrates the risks of taking an informal approach to protecting confidential business information. As described below, in Pauwels v. Deloitte et al., No. 19-CV-2313 (RA), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28736 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2020), the court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, finding that the facts alleged by Plaintiff failed to give rise to a valid claim for misappropriation because (among other issues) Plaintiff failed to impose adequate protections on his alleged confidential business information.

The Plaintiff worked as an “independent advisor” to the Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”), earning upwards of $750,000 per year for his advice on how to optimize BNYM’s investments in alternative energy companies (e.g., wind farms).  No contract governed the relationship; instead, Plaintiff submitted periodic invoices for his advisory work. In the course of his work, Plaintiff developed an investment model as a tool for analyzing BNYM’s alternative energy investments, and in his complaint he alleged that the tool was his proprietary information. Over the course of several years, Plaintiff sent BNYM more than 100 spreadsheets showing implementations of his investment model. Eventually, BNYM retained Deloitte to provide the analyses and severed its relationship with Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that Deloitte improperly used his proprietary model when advising BNYM.
Continue Reading Pauwels v. Deloitte: A Cautionary Tale About Informal Approaches to Protecting Confidential Business Information