Trade Secrets

Subscribe to Trade Secrets via RSS

Today’s blog post is the third, and last, blog post in a series focusing on trade secret law issues and trends. As announced, we will address practical questions and offer insights into how Belgian courts interpret and apply various aspects of the Belgian Trade Secrets Act[1], particularly as it relates to unlawful use, available remedies, and the burden of proof for trade secret misappropriation.Continue Reading Blog 3: Unlocking Trade Secret Protection in Belgium: Key Trends in Trade Secret Protection Before Belgian Courts

Introduction

Today’s blog post is the second blog post in a series focusing on European trade secret law issues and trends. As announced, we will address practical questions and offer insights into how Belgian courts interpret and apply various aspects of the Belgian Trade Secrets Act[1], particularly as it relates to requirements for trade secret protection.

Under the Trade Secrets Act, any information which (1) is secret; (2) has commercial value because it is secret; and (3) has been subject to reasonable steps to keep it secret can qualify as a trade secret.[2] Belgian courts have recently provided significant clarifications regarding these requirements. This blog posts aims to distill these developments, focusing on the conditions under which information is deemed secret and possesses commercial value.Continue Reading Blog 2: Unlocking Trade Secret Protection in Belgium: Key Trends in Trade Secret Protection Before Belgian Courts

Introduction
Today’s blog post starts a series focusing on European trade secret law issues. We will focus on practical questions and share insights on how Belgian courts use the Belgian Trade Secrets Act and interpret its rules according to the EU Trade Secrets Directive.[1]

A similar blog series first came out in 2021.[2] Since then, the amount of decisions by Belgian courts has nearly doubled. Indeed, virtually every single aspect of the EU Trade Secrets Directive has by now been litigated in Belgian courts.

Furthermore, in 2023, a pan-European study conducted by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) showed Belgium as one of the most ‘trade secret-friendly’ jurisdictions in the EU.[3] But does that hold true in practice? This blog post series aims to explore that question.Continue Reading Blog 1: Key Trends in Trade Secret Protection Before Belgian Courts

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perrin Bernard Supowitz, LLC v. Morales continues to highlight the high bar necessary for a motion for preliminary injunction, the evidence required to establish irreparable harm, and the limited “abuse of discretion” standard that may be applied during any appeal.  Case No. 23-55189, 2023 WL 1415572 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, …

The legal battle between VANDA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the United States government provides guidance on the minimum requirements that the government must meet to protect trade secrets provided during the regulatory approval process for pharmaceuticals. The case, which involves alleged unlawful disclosure of trade secrets by government officials to generic drug competitors, presents several issues…

A judge in the Northern District of Texas recently declined to dismiss a lawsuit, CiCi Enterprises LP et al. v. Mucho Pizza, LLC et al., alleging a pizza franchisee failed to maintain the confidentiality of Texas pizza chain CiCi Enterprises LP’s trade secrets after two affiliates inked a development deal with competitor, Papa John’s. This case highlights the importance of comprehensive agreements and the reduction of agreement modifications to writing.

Beginning in 2010, CiCi Enterprises[1] and Mucho Pizza, LLC[2] entered into 17 franchise agreements, which provided Mucho Pizza access to CiCi Enterprises’ trade secrets and other confidential information, including confidential financial and store performance information, pricing, supplier contacts, strategic marketing research, and sales techniques. Each agreement required Mucho Pizza commit to not communicating, divulging, or otherwise using for another party’s benefit these trade secrets and confidential information. The agreements also required Mucho Pizza not to directly or indirectly hold an interest in a competitive pizza restaurant during or immediately after the agreements’ term. These agreements were signed by Mucho Pizza and Mucho Pizza’s personal guarantor, Guillermo Perales. CiCi Enterprises asserts both were bound by the agreements’ terms.Continue Reading Trade Secrets Food Fight Spotlights Importance of Comprehensive Agreements

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) was enacted in 2016. The DTSA allows an owner of a trade secret to sue in federal court when seeking relief for trade secret misappropriation related to a product or service in interstate or foreign commerce, and does not preempt any state law. A goal of the DTSA is to “provide a single, national standard for trade secret misappropriation with clear rules and predictability for everyone involved.” S. Rep. No. 114-220, at 14 (2016). For the majority of the time, this goal is upheld. Aside from establishing a relation to a product or service in interstate or foreign commerce, state trade secret laws are typically almost identical to the DTSA. However, if states trade secret laws do differ from the DTSA, they are usually in regard to remedy.Continue Reading The Defend Trade Secrets Act and How it Differs from State Trade Secret Laws

NBA star Zion Williamson has more to celebrate than his recently announced five-year maximum rookie contract extension with the New Orleans Pelicans, worth up to $239 million. Williamson was also victorious in a lawsuit he filed against his former agent Gina Ford, and her agency Prime Sports Marketing LLC (“Prime Sports”). The case is Williamson v. Prime Sports Marketing LLC et al. in the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, No. 1:19-cv-00593.

Williamson entered into a marketing agreement with Ford and Prime Sports when he was just a freshman at Duke University. He brought suit in 2019, seeking to void the marketing agreement on the grounds that it violated North Carolina’s Uniform Athlete Agent Act (“UAAA”), by failing to include a “conspicuous” warning to the student athlete that execution of the contract would result in a loss of intercollegiate eligibility. In January 2021, the court ruled in favor of Williamson, holding that Williamson’s agreement with Ford and Prime Sports failed to contain the required warning, and also failed to meet the UAAA’s requirements in several other respects. The court thus deemed the marketing agreement void and unenforceable.Continue Reading NBA Star Zion Williamson Secures Wins on the Basketball Court and in the Courtroom, After Defeating Claims of Trade Secret Misappropriation