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 34

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


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


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


California Federal Court dismisses California employee’s challenge of his non-compete agreement based upon enforceable forum selection provision
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • February 12 2013

California federal courts have again said it loud and clear when analyzing whether or not the enforcement of a forum selection clause within


US Supreme Court strikes down Oklahoma Supreme Court decision and holds that arbitrator, rather than court, must determine the enforceability of non-compete agreements containing arbitration provisions
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 5 2012

There are not many issues that the United States Supreme Court can unanimously resolve in five short pages


Federal Court questions whether damages exist in LinkedIn account ownership dispute
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2013

The ownership of social media accounts in the employment context remains a very hot topic. In fact, you might remember the case of Eagle v. Morgan


Federal Court requires foreign resident to litigate non-compete dispute in Missouri based upon Forum Selection Clause
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • February 26 2013

It's 8,242.7 miles or a 17 hour flight between the Philippines and Missouri. Nobody would dispute that this is a significant distance, but as far the


Federal district court grants motion to stay in non-compete matter
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 11 2009

A federal district court in Oregon recently granted a motion to stay in a dual-state non-compete matter based on the first-to-file rule, even though the two cases were filed only a few hours apart


Nevada Supreme Court rules that restrictive employment agreements acquired through mergers are not subject to Nevada's strict assignment rule
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • July 2 2009

In a decision that encourages cost efficient corporate mergers in Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court in HD Supply Facilities Maintenance v. Bymoan, 2009 WL 1635924 (June 11, 2009) recently ruled in an en banc decision that restrictive employment agreements acquired through corporate mergers do not require a showing that the agreements’ assignment provisions were negotiated at arm’s length or are supported by separate consideration


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