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

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


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


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


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


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


Kentucky appellate court affirms authority of Kentucky courts to modify overly broad non-competition agreements in the employment context and sets forth “guiding principles” for future non-compete cases
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • September 6 2012

In a recent opinion, Creech, Inc. v. Brown, the Kentucky Court of Appeals both affirmed the ability of Kentucky courts to modify overly broad non-competition agreements in the employment context and laid out a six-part framework that trial courts may follow when analyzing the reasonableness and enforceability of non-competition agreements


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


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