Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 34

Corporate recruiter convicted of computer fraud and trade secret theft by San Francisco jury

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
-
USA
-
April 29 2013

A California federal jury convicted a San Francisco executive recruiter this week for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") and

California federal court allows non-signatory to arbitration agreement to compel arbitration in trade secrets dispute

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
-
USA
-
February 25 2013

A federal district court in the Northern District of California recently found that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may enforce that

Sports agent non-compete and trade secrets dispute heats up in California

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
-
USA
-
October 19 2012

With the NBA basketball season almost upon us, a high profile legal battle between an aspiring NBA sports agent and his former agency continues to heat up in Los Angeles federal court

California Appellate Court holds that non-compete restriction in stipulated injunction is enforceable because there was no showing that it was not necessary to protect trade secrets

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
-
USA
-
October 12 2012

A California Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court ruling that found a stipulated injunction preventing the solicitation of customers was invalid and unenforceable under California Business & Professions Code section 16000

Federal appellate court finds that different facilities were not a single employer

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
-
USA
-
August 20 2012

The Second Circuit Court, in a recent opinion, has upheld a ruling by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) that different facilitiessubsidiaries or affiliated companies with a common ownerparent corporation were not a “single employer” under the OSH Act, thus repeat citations were not appropriate

Employers beware: Fourth Circuit adopts narrow interpretation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
-
USA
-
August 6 2012

On July 26, 2012, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. Miller, holding that departing employees are not liable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) for mere violations of a company computer use policy

Appeals court affirms judge's Chapter 93a liability finding despite contradictory jury verdict

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
-
USA
-
August 1 2012

In Specialized Tech. Resources, Inc. v. JPS Elastomerics Corp., the Appeals Court upheld a controversial trade secrets decision finding defendants liable for misappropriation of trade secrets despite a jury verdict to the contrary on a parallel common law claim

Delaware Chancery Court rules that former employees are not indispensable parties in non-compete case

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
-
USA
-
July 22 2012

On July 11, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that former employees are not indispensable parties for purposes of dismissal pursuant to Chancery Court Rule 19 in an action against their new employer for breach of covenants not to compete, misappropriation of trade secrets, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, based on allegations that the new employer improperly persuaded the employees to breach agreements with their former employer

Massachusetts federal court rejects expansive view of inevitable disclosure doctrine and denies preliminary injunction

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
-
USA
-
June 22 2012

On June 19, 2012, a Massachusetts federal court declined to apply an expansive interpretation of the inevitable disclosure doctrine during a preliminary injunction ruling, finding that the rule is best applied to establish irreparable injury supporting enforcement of a non-competition agreement and not as the basis for a future misappropriation of trade secrets claim

No cause of action under Georgia's or Utah's trade secrets statutes for misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information not qualifying as trade secret

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
-
USA
-
April 25 2012

Thanks to a recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, the assignee of confidential and proprietary information has found itself in a Catch 22 dilemma, precluded from suing under the state’s trade secrets statute because the information did not qualify as trade secrets but prohibited by that statute from bringing related common law claims

next >