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


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 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


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


The state of the employee: California Court of Appeal finds that non-competition agreement contained in employment agreement is unenforceable against former selleremployee even though it was executed in connection with the sale of a business
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 27 2012

Non-competition 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 California’s general prohibition against non-competition agreements


Nevada Supreme Court rules that restrictive employment agreements acquired through mergers are not subject to Nevada's strict assignment rule
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • July 2 2009

In a decision that encourages cost efficient corporate mergers in Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court in HD Supply Facilities Maintenance v. Bymoan, 2009 WL 1635924 (June 11, 2009) recently ruled in an en banc decision that restrictive employment agreements acquired through corporate mergers do not require a showing that the agreements’ assignment provisions were negotiated at arm’s length or are supported by separate consideration


Fitness companies spar over unauthorized access of departing employee's personal e-mail accounts
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 25 2011

Wrongfully accessing someone's personal email account may cost you $1,000 per unauthorized access, even if that person suffers no injury or loss


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


Solicitor General decides not to file petition for review in United States v. Nosal: Circuit split on Computer Fraud and Abuse Act remains
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 3 2012

The Solicitor General indicated yesterday that he will not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nosal


Ninth Circuit en banc panel tells employers that Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is only to combat hacking, not employee trade secret misappropriation: United States Supreme Court may need to resolve circuit split
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • April 10 2012

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel released its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Nosal and affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing criminal counts against a former employee of a headhunter firm accused of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030 et seq. by conspiring with employees of the former employer to log on to the employer's confidential database and send proprietary files to a competitor