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

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


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


Missouri Supreme Court reaffirms that Missouri is a pro non-compete jurisdiction, enforcing non-competition and modified non-solicitation agreements against non-resident former security company employees
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 21 2012

The Missouri Supreme Court recently issued a decision, Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew, et al., 2012 Mo. LEXIS 167, reaffirming Missouri as a pro non-compete jurisdiction for employers


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


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


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


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


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


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