Free for a Fee

Powered by WPeMatico

Powered by WPeMatico

Powered by WPeMatico

Powered by WPeMatico

Powered by WPeMatico

Powered by WPeMatico

Chicago, IL-based wireless power solutions provider NuCurrent filed a complaint alleging trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement against Korean tech giant Samsung Electronics (KRX:005930). The case, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, alleges that wireless charging technologies incorporated by Samsung into their Galaxy S7 and S8 product lines copies technology which was presented to them by NuCurrent under the terms of a confidentiality agreement.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/02/11/nucurrent-alleges-patent-infringement-samsung-feigns-interest/id=93485/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

In Seyfarth’s first webinar in its 2018 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Michael Wexler, Robert Milligan, and Joshua Salinas presented 2017 National Year In Review: What You Need to Know About the Recent Cases/Developments in Trade Secrets, Non-Compete, and Computer Fraud Law. The panel reviewed noteworthy cases and other legal developments from across the nation over the last year in the areas of trade secrets and data theft, non-competes and other restrictive covenants, and computer fraud. Plus, they provided their predictions for what to watch for in 2018.

As a conclusion to this well-received webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:

• While the Defend Trade Secrets Act provides for an ex parte seizure order, courts have been very unwilling to provide such relief except in extraordinary circumstances.
• In light of recent state laws and appellate court decisions at both the federal and state level in 2017, choice of venue and choice of law provisions must be carefully considered and strategically implemented.
• The ABA’s May 4, 2017, Ethics Opinion encourages lawyers to have an open exchange of communication with their clients about the securities measures their firms are taking to safeguard the clients’ confidential information.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2018/01/articles/trade-secrets/webinar-recap-2017-national-year-in-review-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-recent-cases-developments-in-trade-secrets-non-compete-and-computer-fraud-law/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

As a special feature of our blog—special guest postings by experts, clients, and other professionals—please enjoy this blog entry from Charlie Platt, a director at iDiscovery Solutions.

It’s Friday afternoon and the conversation goes a little like this, “Wait, what? They’re leaving? Where are they going? Is there any opportunity to help them reconsider?”

When a key employee departs an organization, it can take a toll on clients and colleagues, productivity, and morale. What follows is a rush of activity: current projects are reviewed, transition plans are quickly drawn up and put in place, and decisions are made about how to replace the departing employee and how to communicate the departure to the rest of the firm and clients.

Unfortunately, this can also raise questions of concern for the organization, such as, “Did they take any electronic documents with them and, if they did, how can we tell?” Today, employees have easy access to more information than ever before and even greater opportunity to walk away with company data. While most don’t, too many make the choice to take something. Despite best efforts and safeguards, the prevalence of mobile devices, cloud storage, USB devices, etc. provide several possible avenues for a misguided employee to take sensitive company data with them when they depart.

Assessing a single avenue (e.g., USB devices) is not very complicated and can be very insightful. One of my iDS colleagues, Arnold Garcia, recently wrote about USB devices and how we can determine the history of their usage on a computer. This can be a big help in understanding if an employee took electronic documents upon departing an organization. Along with USB issues, some other questions to consider are:

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2017/08/articles/data-theft-2/key-employee-departures-and-trade-secret-risk-assessment/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

This is another case where the defendant allegedly solicits customers or employees over social media in the face of a restrictive covenant. We recently blogged a couple of cases involving solicitations over LinkedIn. This case involves solicitations over Facebook.

O’Laughlin sold his vet clinic to Joseph. The sale agreement contained a non-compete clause that prohibited him from opening a clinic or soliciting patients or employees within 50 miles of the location he sold. The covenant was valid for five years. He sold the clinic for $750,000.

Six months later, O’Laughlin filed a zoning petition to operate a clinic at a location which was 8 miles from the clinic he sold. He formed an entity, create a Facebook page, purchased equipment, and published a “coming soon” page on Facebook. A link directed users to the prospective location in question.

Joseph filed a lawsuit seeking to enforce the covenant and sought injunctive relief. The trial court entered the injunction. O’Laughlin appealed. On appeal, O’Laughlin argued that he did not actually operate a clinic within the prohibited area, and merely creating a Facebook didn’t amount to a violation. He tried to bill these actions as merely “preparatory”. The court is not persuaded.

As an initial matter, the language of the restrictive covenant was broad. It did not cover just the veterinary practice. It also covered engaging or participating in a competitive business. In the court’s view, this encompasses forming an entity, purchasing an equipment, and applying for a zoning exception.

The court also focuses on his solicitation of customers through social media. The court finds his operation of a Facebook page and communications with prospective customers violated the clause:

more

Case citation: Joseph v. O’Laughlin, 2017 WL 3599048 (Pa. Super Ct. Aug. 22, 2017)

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/09/non-compete-applies-to-facebook-page-for-unlaunched-business-joseph-v-olaughlin.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.