trade secret misappropriation

The U.S. Justice Department indicted a man for allegedly conspiring to steal proprietary data from General Electric (“GE”) and produce and sell it in China.
Continue Reading DOJ Indicts Hong Kong Citizen in Attempted Trade Secrets Scheme

As companies have pivoted to remote-working, it is increasingly important to pay attention to the risks of videoconferencing, particularly when trade secrets are involved. In a recent case, the Delaware Chancery Court ruled that Plaintiffs did not take reasonable steps to protect their trade secrets because they did not implement appropriate privacy measures on their Zoom calls.

Continue Reading Who’s on the Line?: Protecting Your Trade Secrets on Zoom Calls

On December 16, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held for the first time in Attia v. Google LLC that a misappropriation claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) may be brought for a misappropriation that started prior to the enactment of the DTSA as long as the claim also arises from post-enactment misappropriation or from the continued use of the same trade secret.  The decision further expands the reach of the DTSA and provides a blueprint for other courts to rule along the same lines.

The case, which was originally filed in the Northern District of California in 2014, was brought by an architect and his firm against Google under the DTSA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and state trade secret and contract laws for alleged misappropriation of the plaintiff’s “Engineered Architecture” technology.[1] Although the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the DTSA claim on the grounds that  the architect lacked standing under the DTSA because Google’s 2012 patent applications based on the “Engineered Architecture” technology placed the contested information in the public domain, extinguishing any trade secret claims over it,[2] the Ninth Circuit’s ruling was significant for other reasons, namely the expansion of the DTSA’s potential applicability.


Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Allows Defend Trade Secrets Act Claims for Conduct Predating the DTSA

As the year comes to a close, it’s safe to say 2020 was a year unlike any other and full of lessons to be learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to the growing threat to U.S. intellectual property abroad.

A look back on the 10 most read posts from this past year highlights some key developments

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

Virginia recently joined a growing list of states that have passed legislation prohibiting employers from enforcing non-compete agreements against low-wage employees.  Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Washington have already enacted similar legislation.  And as we previously posted, similar legislation was introduced in the United States Senate nearly a year ago, though it did not advance.  The trend reflects recognition among policy makers that non-compete agreements may unfairly restrict low-wage workers, who generally have limited bargaining power with respect to employers, from seeking new employment opportunities.

Continue Reading Virginia Joins States That Restrict Use of Non-Compete Agreements

The First Circuit’s decision in TLS Mgmt. & Mktg. Servs., LLC v. Rodriguez-Toledo, 966 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2020) is an important reminder that trade secret owners must take great care to understand the nature of their trade secrets, how they satisfy the legal definition of trade secrets, and how they differ from other forms of intellectual property as early as possible in a case in order to create the factual record required for full enforcement and recovery.

Continue Reading First Circuit Reversal Highlights Importance of Satisfying Trade Secret Definition

A new indictment alleging misappropriation of U.S. oil and gas trade secrets by a Chinese energy company, its U.S.-based affiliate, and an executive is another example in a recent string of prosecutions for trade secrets theft involving China, a topic that we have covered on the blog here.

Continue Reading Grand Jury Indicts Chinese Energy Company, U.S. Oil and Gas Affiliate, and Chinese National on Trade Secrets Charges

Why litigate a case for months or years, only to arrive at a settlement that would have been possible before the case began?  In many cases, neither litigant would choose this approach, but it happens quite often nonetheless.  According to Lex Machina data, about 60% of trade secret cases filed in federal court in the last decade ended in either a voluntary (8%) or stipulated (52%) dismissal.  Of course, many of these settlements were likely informed by discovery and the arguments made by the parties in court.  But in other cases, resolutions probably could have been reached before both parties incurred unnecessary litigation expenses.

Continue Reading Trade Secret Strategies: Using Standstill Agreements to Resolve Disputes Out of Court

Under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and many other states’ trade secret acts, a plaintiff must identify its alleged trade secrets as a prerequisite to conducting discovery.  Cal. Civ. Code § 2019.210.  The Ninth Circuit recently held that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) also includes this requirement to identify alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity.  The Ninth Circuit was considering whether the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had abused its discretion in granting summary judgment for a defendant on CUTSA and DTSA claims by finding that the plaintiff had not identified its trade secrets with sufficient particularity without any discovery. (Spoiler alert: It did.)

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Opens the Door to Modifying a Trade Secret Identification After Discovery