Northern District of California

On August 24, 2021, the Northern District of California accepted the guilty pleas of the two co-founders of the Taiwanese biopharmaceutical start-up, JHL Biotech (now known as Eden Biologiccs) for trade secret theft and wire fraud. Pending sentencing, both face steep criminal penalties and possible prison sentences.

Chief Executive Officer Racho Jordanov and Chief Operating Officer Rose Lin were indicted for engaging in a fraudulent scheme to steal confidential and proprietary materials from competitor Genetech for over a decade. With these materials, JHL Biotech boosted its own, business because it was able to “cut corners, reduce costs, solve problems, save time, and otherwise accelerate product development timelines, ” alleged the Department of Justice in their indictment earlier this summer. Acting United States Attorney Hinds called the company a “nearly $1 billion Taiwanese unicorn built on a foundation of lies.”
Continue Reading Co-Founders of Taiwanese Biotech Company Plead Guilty to Trade Secret Theft as U.S. Cracks Down on Corporate Espionage

Last year saw many important trade secret developments in the court. Here is our Top 5:

1. DuPont v. Kolon

This case had it all. What appeared at first to be the actions of one disgruntled employee turned out to be a long-standing high-level initiative of Kolon to target former DuPont employees in order to develop its fledgling para-aramid fiber using the secrets behind industry standard Kevlar. There was spoliation, 400 page expert reports arguing all of DuPont’s trade secrets were disclosed in its own patents, antitrust counterclaims, criminal charges, Korean investigations, a two-month jury trial culminating in a damages award just shy of a billion dollars, an appeal, and finally—in 2015—resolution. This epic battle came to end with Kolon being criminally indicted, paying $275 million to DuPont in restitution, and settling the civil case under undisclosed terms. Read about it here.Continue Reading 2015 Trade Secret Year in Review: Key Courtroom Developments

Earlier this month, the District Court for the Northern District of California addressed the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), drawing a firm line between causes of action based on improper access of an employer’s computer, and causes of action based on improper use of the employer’s data.  Because of the narrow view taken within the Ninth Circuit as to the scope of claims properly falling under the CFAA, the district court held that there was no viable claim under the CFAA.
Continue Reading Access v. Use: An Important Distinction in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

In a blow to victims of data theft, the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Nosal held that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) was not an available remedy where the alleged thief had authorized access to the computer system from which data was stolen. The Northern District Court of California’s recent decision in

It is common knowledge that California is somewhat of an outlier when it comes to trying to enforce contracts which prohibit employees from competing with their former employer. The recent federal decision in Richmond Technologies, Inc. v. Aumtech Business Solutions, et al., No. 11-CV-02460-LHK, 2011 WL 2607158 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2011), now provides