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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 40

2015 Trade Secrets Webinar Series Year in Review
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 15 2015

The first webinar of the year, led by Michael Wexler, Robert Milligan and Daniel Hart, reviewed noteworthy cases and other legal developments from


Despite Evidence That Ex-Employee Violated Customer Non-Solicitation Covenant, Injunction Denied Because No “Irreparable” Harm
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • May 6 2016

Touzot was an employee of ROM, a seller of products used in making balsa wood model planes and boats. His employment agreement included a


Federal Appellate Court finds motion to enjoin disclosure of confidential information should not be denied merely because the same information could have been acquired lawfully
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 28 2013

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, reversing a trial court's refusal to enter an order enjoining disclosure of confidential


Preliminary injunction issued by Nebraska federal district court to level the playing field in trade secrets dispute
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 13 2013

A federal district court in Nebraska recently issued a significant preliminary injunction preventing trade secret misappropriation and unlawful


California federal court holds that trade secret misappropriation defendant need not respond to plaintiff's discovery requests until provided with identification of information claimed to have been stolen
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 12 2012

The trend of some recent judicial decisions seems to reflect an increasing concern by courts that, notwithstanding trade secret misappropriation plaintiffs’ understandable reluctance to disclose proprietary information in more detail than absolutely necessary, they must describe with considerable specificity whatever is alleged to have been purloined


Connecticut court has jurisdiction over Canadian defendant charged with misappropriation of Canadian company’s trade secret emails
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 10 2013

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a Connecticut federal court's order dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction a Connecticut


Use of even a small amount of commercially valuable confidential information obtained from someone without authority to convey it constitutes actionable trade secret misappropriation according to Eighth Circuit
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 19 2011

A recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, extremely favorable to a plaintiff alleging trade secret misappropriation, holds that protection may be accorded to a compilation of information if reasonable efforts were made to keep the compilation secret, where the compilation adds value to the information, regardless of the amount of the information that already was in the public domain


Filing a patent application covering a misappropriated trade secret held to constitute a "use" which justifies $600,000 in compensatory damages
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • February 6 2012

Quoting Section 40, comment c, of the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held recently that “Any exploitation of the trade secret that is likely to result in injury to the trade secret owner or enrichment to the defendant” constitutes a “use” giving rise to liability for misappropriation


Rankings of NFL prospects may constitute trade secrets
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 7 2013

With today's college football National Championship game between Alabama and Notre Dame, a recent trade secret decision regarding the interplay between


Employee’s competition with former employer restricted despite absence of signed non-compete
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • May 21 2014

The former employer failed to prove that the parties entered into an effective non-compete agreement, and also failed to prove that the ex-employee