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

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


Employers' obligation to defend and indemnify rogue employees in California?
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 14 2011

On October 12, 2011, the California Court of Appeal in Nicholas Laboratories, LLC v. Christopher Chen, No. G044105, 2011 WL 4823329 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2011), held that Labor Code section 2802 does not require an employer to reimburse its employee for attorney fees incurred in the employee’s successful defense of the employer’s action against the employee


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


Key Computer Fraud and Abuse Act case heard by Ninth Circuit en banc panel: can rogue employees be held liable for data theft under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 16 2011

The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on the key United States v. Nosal case yesterday before an en banc panel


Oregon federal court permits declaratory relief suit to proceed in race to judgment non-compete dispute
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • February 13 2012

In light of Valentine’s Day, a blog involving two competitors specializing in heart rhythm therapy seems fitting


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


Employer petitions U.S. Supreme Court to resolve Computer Fraud and Abuse Act circuit split
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • November 2 2012

As anticipated, the issue regarding the application of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) against employees who violate their employer’s computer use policies and steal valuable company data may be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court


Pennsylvania federal court dismisses employee’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim based upon employer’s alleged improprer access of LinkedIn account: no cognizable damages
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2012

Ownership of company social media accounts has recently become a hot topic in the legal industry, and with its decision in Eagle v. Morgan this past week, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has added fuel to the fire


California Appellate Court holds that non-compete restriction in stipulated injunction is enforceable because there was no showing that it was not necessary to protect trade secrets
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2012

A California Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court ruling that found a stipulated injunction preventing the solicitation of customers was invalid and unenforceable under California Business & Professions Code section 16000


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