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: 11-20 of 32

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

Ninth Circuit en banc panel tells employers that Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is only to combat hacking, not employee trade secret misappropriation: United States Supreme Court may need to resolve circuit split

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 10 2012

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel released its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Nosal and affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing criminal counts against a former employee of a headhunter firm accused of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030 et seq. by conspiring with employees of the former employer to log on to the employer's confidential database and send proprietary files to a competitor

Ninth Circuit rejects application of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in employee theft cases

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 12 2012

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel released its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Nosal

Colorado Federal Court rules that former employer stated a claim against former executive and his new employer under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act regardless of differing circuit interpretations of the act

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 9 2012

In its order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in SBM Site Services, LLC v. Garrett, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00385, a Colorado federal court identified a circuit split over the interpretation of “unauthorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and then found a former employer had stated a CFAA claim against a former executive and his new employer regardless of the different circuit interpretations based upon his post-termination computer activities

Minnesota district court dismisses Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim brought against former employee based upon narrow interpretation of Act

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 21 2012

In another decision that underscores the circuit split regarding the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act’s (CFAA) language on authorized access, the Honorable Judge David Doty of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has dismissed an employer’s claim that its former employees violated the Act

Solicitor General decides not to file petition for review in United States v. Nosal: Circuit split on Computer Fraud and Abuse Act remains

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 3 2012

The Solicitor General indicated yesterday that he will not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nosal

Missouri Supreme Court reaffirms that Missouri is a pro non-compete jurisdiction, enforcing non-competition and modified non-solicitation agreements against non-resident former security company employees

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 21 2012

The Missouri Supreme Court recently issued a decision, Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew, et al., 2012 Mo. LEXIS 167, reaffirming Missouri as a pro non-compete jurisdiction for employers

The state of the employee: California Court of Appeal finds that non-competition agreement contained in employment agreement is unenforceable against former selleremployee even though it was executed in connection with the sale of a business

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

Non-competition agreements executed in connection with the sale of a business are typically enforceable as a limited exception under Business and Professions Code section 16601 and applicable case authority to California’s general prohibition against non-competition agreements

California court rules that non-competition agreement contained in employment agreement is unenforceable against former seller even though it was executed in connection with the sale of a business

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 29 2012

Noncompetition agreements executed in connection with the sale of a business are typically enforceable as a limited exception under Business and Professions Code section 16601 and applicable case authority to Californias general prohibition against noncompetition agreements

Kentucky appellate court affirms authority of Kentucky courts to modify overly broad non-competition agreements in the employment context and sets forth “guiding principles” for future non-compete cases

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 6 2012

In a recent opinion, Creech, Inc. v. Brown, the Kentucky Court of Appeals both affirmed the ability of Kentucky courts to modify overly broad non-competition agreements in the employment context and laid out a six-part framework that trial courts may follow when analyzing the reasonableness and enforceability of non-competition agreements