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 44

An employee is stealing company documentsthat can’t be protected activity, right?

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 3 2013

A supervisor discovers that an employee has recently downloaded thousands of pages of confidential Company billing and financial information, and

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act circuit split remains unresolved: United States Supreme Court challenge dismissed

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 7 2013

The parties in the WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. Miller matter recently agreed to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari filed with the United

Top 10 developmentsheadlines in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law in 2012

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2012

As part of our annual tradition, here is our list of the top 10 developmentsheadlines in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law for 2012

Dead again? Use of computer fraud and abuse act by employers to combat employee data theft limited by Ninth Circuit's latest ruling

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2011

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that U.S. v. Nosal be reheard en banc by all of the Appeals Court judges and that the “three-judge panel opinion in U.S. v. Nosal, 642 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2011) shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.”

No damages? Illinois federal court tosses Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim alleging hacking of law firm network

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 13 2013

An Illinois federal court recently found in the favor of the defendant on a plaintiff's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim because the plaintiff

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and disloyal employees: a narrow bridge to nowhere?

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 15 2013

An old folk melody describes the world as "a very narrow bridge," where one misstep can bring disaster. The song seeks to inspire, calling on people

Update on CNH v. EEOC can the EEOC troll for plaintiffs by sending a blast email to business email addresses?

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 10 2013

On August 1, 2013, Case New Holland, Inc. and CNH America LLC, commenced federal court litigation against the EEOC and one of its Investigators from

Employer petitions U.S. Supreme Court to resolve Computer Fraud and Abuse Act circuit split

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 2 2012

As anticipated, the issue regarding the application of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) against employees who violate their employer’s computer use policies and steal valuable company data may be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Waiting on Nosal...combating data theft under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the Ninth Circuit

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 20 2012

A recent California federal court decision has permitted an employer to pursue a former employee for alleged violations of the employer's computer usage policies under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), while an en banc Ninth Circuit panel considers the validity of such claims

Arizona federal court issues significant Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and trade secret preemption decision

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 27 2012

According to a recent Arizona federal court decision, (a) an employee who had the right to access his employer’s confidential emails did not violate the federal Computer Fraud and Access Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030, by downloading 300 such documents to his personal computer and sharing them with a recently terminated employee; (b) an employer may pursue either a misappropriation claim under the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act (AUTSA), or statutorily pre-empted causes of action based on the same facts; and (c) a rule to show cause is appropriate where the defendants violated a 48-hour deadline to return the employer’s confidential documents