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

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


Top 10 2011 developmentsheadlines in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 17 2012

We have compiled a list of the top 2011 developmentsheadlines in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law


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


Big brother can’t ask for access to your “personal” social media accounts either.more social media legislation proposed in California
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 12 2012

Recently, we blogged about the passage of California Assembly Bill 1844, which regulates employers’ ability to demand access to employees’ or prospective hires’ personal social media accounts


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


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


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


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