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 110

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


California federal district court distinguishes Ninth Circuit’s Nosal decision and finds that Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims are available for violations of employer’s “access” restrictions
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 14 2012

On June 19, 2012, a district court for the Northern District of California distinguished the Ninth Circuit’s recent U.S. v. Nosal decision and allowed an employer to bring a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) against a former employee for alleged violations of a verbal computer access restriction


Top 10 developmentsheadlines in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law in 2014
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2015

As part of our annual tradition, we are pleased to present our discussion of the top 10 developmentsheadlines in trade secret, computer fraud, and


Recent alleged cyberattack by ex-employee demonstrates importance of employer diligence on protecting network passwords
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • June 3 2013

A recently unsealed criminal complaint out of the Eastern District of New York raises allegations that paint a frightening picture for employers of


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


Electronic agreement to arbitrate bytes employer
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 5 2015

Since the California Civil Code was amended in 1999 to state that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature, many


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


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


Pennsylvania Federal Court salvages customer lists as basis for UTSA claim, but shreds liquidated damages provision and rejects fiduciary claim
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • February 3 2012

In the most recent ruling in long-running litigation styled AMG National Trust Bank v. Ries, NO. 06-CV4337, 09-cv-3061 (E.D. Pa.) (decided Dec. 29, 2011), the Eastern District of Pennsylvania partially granted the defendant Stephen Ries’s motion for summary judgment, jettisoning the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claims and plaintiff’s request for liquidated damages, but permitting the case to proceed for alleged breach of a restrictive covenant in his employment agreement


The use of digital forensics in trade secret matters (Part 2 of 3)
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • May 23 2012

This post is designed to build on Part 1 of this three part series on digital forensics