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 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


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


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


Computer Fraud and Abuse Act circuit split remains unresolved: United States Supreme Court challenge dismissed
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 7 2013

The parties in the WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. Miller matter recently agreed to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari filed with the United


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


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


Dead again? Use of computer fraud and abuse act by employers to combat employee data theft limited by Ninth Circuit's latest ruling
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 29 2011

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that U.S. v. Nosal be reheard en banc by all of the Appeals Court judges and that the “three-judge panel opinion in U.S. v. Nosal, 642 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2011) shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.”


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


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


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