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


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


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


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


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 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


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