We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 19

Arizona Supreme Court holds that UTSA does not preempt common law claims for misuse of confidential information that is not a trade secret

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 17 2014

The nineteenth century English jurist Lord Ellenborough once observed that "it is difficult to struggle with the common law." Kerr v. Willan, 171 Eng

Scope of Uniform Trade Secrets Act trimmed by Arizona Supreme Court

  • Epstein Becker Green
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 1 2014

A recent Opinion issued by the Arizona Supreme Court highlights a noteworthy dichotomy in the way various states interpret the pre-emptive effect of

Not all vice presidents are officers and entitled to corporate indemnification

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2014

Addressing the meaning of the term “officer” in a company’s bylaws, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s summary

Sorting laundry: California court reaffirms scope of Uniform Trade Secrets Act

  • Ogletree Deakins
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 5 2013

Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park, No. D062405 (October 15, 2013): A California Court of Appeal recently held that claims of breach of

New Jersey federal court decision concerning flavor & fragrance formulas presents enforcement conundrum for trade secret owners

  • Epstein Becker Green
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 11 2013

When an employee trusted with access to trade secret information leaves to join a competitor, many former employers have concerns. Merely warning a

Virtually identical trade secret theft cases result in opposite conclusions: lessons from the Second Circuit's attention to detail

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 7 2013

On August 1, 2013, the Second Circuit affirmed Samarth Agrawal's criminal convictions for violating both the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA) and

Rule 30(b)(6) witness cannot be instructed not to answer questions about a noticed topic

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2013

Judge Cox granted defendants’ (collectively “Crimson”) motion to compel answers to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition questions and for sanctions in

Failure to identify information as confidential or trade secret pursuant to requirements of non-disclosure agreement can preclude recovery for misappropriation under Uniform Trade Secrets Act

  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 18 2013

A recent decision from the Federal Circuit illustrates the perils of not following the requirements of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with respect

Court interprets settlement agreement to allow for fee recovery

  • Barger & Wolen LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 28 2013

In Khavarian Enterprises Inc. v. Commline Inc.,2013 DJDAR 6107 (2013) the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District overruled the

$2.8 million award for predictive coding expenses in a trade secret case

  • Jackson Lewis PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 19 2013

A new decision out of California will be of interest to both trade secret and e-discovery lawyers: Gabriel Tech. Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 2013 WL