Nonprofit organizations rely heavily on funding from donations, gifts, and the like to make an impact in the communities they serve.  Such resources are relatively scarce, and fundraising in the nonprofit world is a highly competitive endeavor.  Accordingly, carefully guarded donor and participant lists may be considered trade secrets.  N. Atl. Instruments, Inc. v. Haber, 188 F.3d 38, 44 (2d Cir. 1999).  Under the Uniform Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq., a trade secret is information that derives economic value from not being generally known that is subject to reasonable measures of secrecy by its owners.  But how does a nonprofit charitable organization sufficiently plead the economic value of its donor and participant lists?
Continue Reading The Economic Value of Nonprofits—Donor and Participant Lists

The following review of Qatar’s trade secrets laws continues the series of trade secrets law reviews for the Middle East and North Africa (“MENA”). Qatar has a comprehensive legal regime in place for the protection of trade secrets, perhaps more so than its GCC counterparts. First and foremost, it has enacted a law to specifically address the protection of trade secrets (Law No. 5 of 2005 on Trade Secrets) (the “Trade Secrets Law”).  However, Qatar also offers additional safeguards under its labour, intellectual property, criminal and commercial laws, as summarized below.[1] It is also worth noting that despite the protection already conferred by law, it is common practice in Qatar to address trade secrets and other confidential information by contract.

Continue Reading MENA Trade Secrets Law Review: Qatar

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

Located in the heart of Europe, Belgium is a true hub of logistics and innovation. It is for example home to one of Europe’s largest sea ports (with all the warehousing infrastructure that one would expect). Belgium also hosts several, globally leading biotech and life sciences clusters. It is no coincidence for example that pharma giant Pfizer has one of its largest production and packaging sites in Puurs, a small Belgian town, where it produces its Covid-19 vaccine. A few miles north, Jansen Pharmaceuticals has its HQ.

Such hubs are not just rich in talented human resources, but also in cutting edge and highly valuable know-how. A high concentration of know-how, combined with the increased mobility of employees, means a high(er) risk of misappropriation of this valuable information by unauthorized (third) parties. When a (foreign) company suspects its know-how has been misappropriated in Belgium, it will need evidence to substantiate this allegation in court. If the know-how is (also) covered by an intellectual property (IP) right, the holder of the know-how has access to a very efficient means of collecting evidence: the descriptive counterfeit seizure whereby discovery-like evidentiary measures will be granted ex parte. When the misappropriated know-how is only protected as a trade secret, no similar measures are provided for under EU law. The Belgian judges have therefore in the past not been very eager to grant trade secret holders access to ex parte evidence-gathering. With a recent judgment, however, the Brussels Court of Appeal has left the door behind which discovery-like measures are stored for holders of trade secrets open.


Continue Reading Gathering evidence of trade secret infringement in Belgium: towards discovery-like measures?

Tips for European employers on how to protect company trade secrets.

7 to 12 years. According to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study, this is the average amount of time spent by an employee with any one European Union employer. However, in some countries, regions and sectors, employees move around more frequently than this, and the current COVID-19 pandemic will also have had an impact on these numbers.

In any event, if one of your employees leaves, you do not want your company’s trade secrets and other confidential information to leave with them.


Continue Reading Employees may come and go. But will your trade secrets follow them?

On January 13, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued the long-awaited public version of its final opinion in the Matter of Botulinum Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-1145), otherwise known as the “Botox case.” As previewed in the ITC’s earlier notice of decision, the ITC’s final opinion affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s issuance of a 21-month ban on imports and sale of Respondents’ lower-cost alternative to Botox for misappropriation of trade secret manufacturing processes and reversed the finding that Complainant Medytox’s specific strain of botulinum toxin bacteria is a protectable trade secret.

As we previously reported, South Korean company Daewoong Pharmaceutical and its U.S.-based licensee Evolus had been facing a potential 10-year ban of the import and sale of its product, Juveau; however, because the ITC reversed the ALJ’s finding and instead held that the bacterial strain at issue was not a protectable trade secret, the Respondents could not be liable for trade secret misappropriation of the bacterial strain itself. The ITC thus reduced the length of the ban from 10 years to 21 months, accounting for the ITC’s finding that Respondents were liable for theft of trade secrets related to Medytox’s manufacturing process.


Continue Reading Final ITC Ruling in Botox Rival Case Creates More Head-Lines

The EU Whistleblower Directive: A Burden or an Opportunity?

Tension between the protection of whistleblowers and the protection of trade secrets?        

Companies should see the obligations set out in the EU Whistleblower Directive regarding internal reporting channels as an opportunity rather than a burden. Having an internal tool to facilitate detection of possible misconduct

Last week, a District Court in the Southern District of New York imposed a $40,000 sanction on SIMO Holdings, Inc. (“SIMO”) for violating a pretrial discovery protective order.  SIMO disclosed four documents covered under the protective order to persons not permitted to view those documents, and the Court determined that a $10,000 sanction for each document was warranted.

Continue Reading Plaintiff Sanctioned for Violating Protective Order by Sharing Discovery

Crowell & Moring has issued its seventh-annual “Litigation Forecast 2019: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know for the Coming Year.” This year, we take a deep dive into how technology is increasingly having a profound impact on the practice of law, and in particular on litigation case strategy.

The Forecast cover story, “

On September 14, 2018, a former scientist at GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) pled guilty to conspiring to steal trade secrets from his former employer. Dr. Tao Li was accused of stealing confidential information about anti-cancer drugs from a GSK facility in Upper Merion, Pennsylvania after conspiring with other GSK employees who provided information to him via email,