Legislative activity is picking up again, and therefore so are we. This year, there have been a total of 67 noncompete bills in 22 states,1 plus four pending federal noncompete bills and a bill t...
You hired someone from a competitor. You’re excited. They’re excited. But you may have bought yourself a lawsuit. Can you avoid it? Maybe.
Once again, we have resounding unanimity on the issues and recommendations to the FTC and DOJ, as they consider whether to regulate (and if so, how) noncompetes, nondisclosure agreements, and other restrictive covenants. 70 lawyers who practice extensively in the area of trade secret and restrictive covenant law agree: federal regulation is likely inappropriate, definitely premature, and, in any event, should be limited.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) just completed their second workshop on competition.[1] Noncompetes are again squarely in the crosshairs. Here is what you need to know and what you need to do.
No one ever points to North Dakota’s or Oklahoma’s ban on noncompete as producing a thriving tech sector, because they haven’t. Yet, somehow think that the same ban in California is why we have Silicon Valley. This assumption is wrong for multiple reasons. Worse, it leads to poor policy.
Episode 12 of Fairly Competing is out! In this episode, Ben Fink, John Marsh, and I explore Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc., an extremely well-reasoned decision offering an object lesson about preliminary injunctions in trade secret cases, highlighting that it’s no longer safe to assume you will get a preliminary injunction simply because a former employee downloaded 5,000 documents — even if he invokes the 5th Amendment.
About twice a year, I update my chart of reported noncompete and trade secrets decisions. The results continue the trend: While noncompete litigation appears to have largely leveled off over the last 15-plus years, trade secret litigation continues to reflect an overall upward trajectory.
If you’ve been following along with this series of posts, you know that there have been 66 noncompete bills pending in 25 states this year — plus three pending federal noncompete bills, D.C.’s new law to ban most noncompetes, and a bill to rein in D.C’s new law before it becomes effective (which is anticipated to be in April 2022). Today’s post discusses New Jersey’s proposed noncompete legislation.
Episode 11 of Fairly Competing is out! In this episode, Ben Fink, John Marsh, and I explore the ins and outs of mediating trade secret disputes through a discussion with special guest James Pooley, one of the true deans of the trade secret bar.
Misconceptions about noncompetes abound. And, as noncompete agreements are increasingly in the cross-hairs of the media and legislators, it has become increasingly clear that some of the most vocal de...
Episode 10 of Fairly Competing is out! In this episode, Ben Fink, John Marsh, and I explore the Supreme Court’s decision in Van Buren v. U.S., narrowly interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — and what it means for protecting proprietary electronic materials.
Episode 9 of Fairly Competing is out! In this episode, Ben Fink, John Marsh, and I discuss litigating trade secret cases generally and post-COVID, this time with a focus on the reasons for the lack of civility in trade secret and restrictive covenant cases — and what to do about it.
Episode 8 of Fairly Competing is out!
In this episode, Ben Fink, John Marsh, and I discuss litigating trade secret cases — including expedited discovery, depositions, protective orders, and hearings on motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions — generally and post-COVID.
In this episode, Ben Fink, John Marsh, and I discuss litigating trade secret cases — including expedited discovery, depositions, protective orders, and hearings on motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions — generally and post-COVID.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Van Buren is out. The Court took a narrow view on the scope of the CFAA, resolving key aspects of the circuit split, and eliminating the concern that every breach of fiduciary duties by an employee or violation by an employee of the terms of their employer’s computer use policy can be a criminal act.
As regular readers of this blog know, I focus on providing content and rarely suggest programs to attend. However, given that CLE programs are still remote and can be hard to identify, I thought I’d take a moment to call out a few upcoming, content-rich programs. Take a look.
The Business Litigation Session (the “BLS”) of the Massachusetts Superior Court just issued a decision on the scope of preemption under Massachusetts “new” (effective October 1, 2018) trade secret law, the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act (sometimes referred to as “MUTSA,” and other times as “MTSA”). See what it says.
With all of the changes at the state level (45 bills in 21 states, plus D.C.’s near-total ban, which is, as of yesterday, now officially adopted and pending funding, likely in the fall, it seems), the federal efforts — spearheaded by Senator Chris Murphy — continue to inch forward. During the Senate the confirmation hearing of Julie Su (currently the Secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency) for the position the Deputy Labor Secretary, Senator Chris Murphy reminds us that his bill to ban noncompetes is still in the works — and that, ultimately, he expects the FTC to regulate noncompetes.
About twice a year, I update my chart of reported noncompete and trade secrets decisions. As regular readers of this blog know, a little over a decade ago, I became curious to see how many reported trade secret and noncompete decisions were issued each year in all of the federal and state courts around the country. So, I did a “back of the envelope” calculation. I have performed similar calculations every year since. Here is the latest.
A few days ago, I posted a long article on President-elect Biden’s proposed national partial ban of noncompetes and what to do about it: President Biden’s Proposed Ban of (Most) Noncompetes: Protection Strategies and Steps to Take Now.
To long? Here’s the summary.
To long? Here’s the summary.
What concept did President Obama, President-elect Biden, and 47 states – including every single state to consider the issue in the past decade – reject? A ban on noncompetes.
What bill did the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Labor & Workforce Development just vote to approve? Yep: a ban on noncompetes.
What bill did the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Labor & Workforce Development just vote to approve? Yep: a ban on noncompetes.
Protecting trade secrets, confidential business information, goodwill, and any other recognized legitimate business interests does not happen by accident. Companies need to plan. And, when one of the key tools is taken away (i.e., noncompetes), they need to look more closely at the remaining options to ensure they have the protections they need and that fit their circumstances. We discuss them in this post.
The split in the Circuits over the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is up at the U.S. Supreme Court today. The issue: Whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.
Trade secret misappropriation is not a matter of degree. Either the defendant acquired, used, or disclosed information or he did not.
As regular readers of this blog know, I focus on providing content, and don’t often suggest programs to attend. However, it just so happens that over the course of the next week, there are three programs that all provide some helpful insights, each in a different way. Take a look.