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


Ninth Circuit rejects application of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in employee theft cases
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • April 12 2012

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel released its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Nosal


California federal court boots employee’s challenge of his non-compete because of Pennsylvania forum selection provision
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • September 27 2012

In a recent order, a federal court in the Northern District of California weighed in on the validity of a forum selection clause contained in an employment agreement in connection with a California employee’s declaratory relief action to invalidate his non-compete provision with his former employer


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


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


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


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


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


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