The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) is strongly encouraging cannabis producers to share information regarding their clinical studies with the FDA, so it, in turn, can better understand the effects of chronic use of cannabis. This will then help the FDA develop sound science-based policies and regulations relating to cannabis and cannabis derived products. But cannabis producers also understandably want to protect their trade secret information in this rapidly growing industry. The FDA’s DMF process may be the solution where everybody can win.

Continue Reading High-ly Sensitive Information: Use of FDA’s DMF Process to Protect Cannabis Trade Secrets

In West Virginia, legislators are moving forward a bill that would criminalize trade secret theft. On February 26th 2019, the West Virginia House of Delegates passed H.B. 2014 with a 98-1 approval that would create criminal penalties for stealing trade secret or other intellectual property. The bill is now headed to the West Virginia Senate

Applying the trade secret label to diversity initiatives is growing in popularity in recent years.

This issue has arisen in the context of public records requests, as companies with government contracts are subject to the Labor Department’s anti-discrimination arm and are required to provide diversity information in the form of EEO-1 reports. Several companies have

Legislation recently introduced in the United States Senate to protect low-wage workers could roll back the use of non-compete agreements, a common tool companies use to protect their trade secrets.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio introduced the “Freedom to Compete Act,” which aims to protect low-wage and entry-level employees from non-compete agreements, which generally

On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. ruled unanimously that plaintiffs do not need to allege “some actual injury or adverse effect” in order to challenge alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In so doing, the Supreme Court expressly held that the loss of