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: 11-20 of 34

Pennsylvania federal court dismisses employee’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim based upon employer’s alleged improprer access of LinkedIn account: no cognizable damages
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2012

Ownership of company social media accounts has recently become a hot topic in the legal industry, and with its decision in Eagle v. Morgan this past week, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has added fuel to the fire


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


Big brother can’t ask for access to your “personal” social media accounts either.more social media legislation proposed in California
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 12 2012

Recently, we blogged about the passage of California Assembly Bill 1844, which regulates employers’ ability to demand access to employees’ or prospective hires’ personal social media accounts


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


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


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


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


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


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