Continued misappropriation claims that originate prior to enactment are not permitted under the UTSA but the DTSA is silent on the issue. Nevertheless, a growing body of case law is holding that such continued misappropriation claims are viable under the DTSA pointing out a key difference litigators need to be aware of in the statutes that otherwise share many similarities.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) allow employers to provide their workforce with notice of the DTSA whistleblower immunities by “cross-referencing a policy document” but the statute gives no guidance on what the “policy document” is to say, how it should be “cross-referenced,” or if the “policy document” should be provided to employees? This post endeavors to provide answers to these questions.
On Feb. 24, 2017, at the University of Denver, come join Fisher Phillips attorneys and a prominent of practitioners and state and federal judges at the first ever conference on the new Defend Trade Secrets Acts (DTSA), which became effective in mid-2016.
When the Defend Trade Secret Act (“DTSA”) was enacted much was written about its unique remedy provision – the ex parte seizure of property. There were numerous questions about how federal courts would interpret and apply the provision. A federal court in California recently gave the first answer.
A recent medical device case shows that an employer could lose the benefit of a forum-selection clause by failing to sue its former employee along with the new employer at the outset of the case. Unfortunately, in this case, the decision not to do so had dire consequences for the employer.
A recent case from the Colorado Supreme Court underscores the importance of covering all bases in proving that information actually constitutes trade secrets or other confidential information. Litigants who fail to do so risk broad disclosure of their protectable information.
Forum-selection clauses can have a drastic impact on the outcome of non-compete litigation where there can be significant differences between states, and the Alabama Supreme Court just weighed in.
The White House’s recent “Call to Action” for non-compete reform may have been undermined by the recent election of Donald Trump, but what about at the state level?
Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the company; A disgruntled employee kept saying “please jump with me.” She was trying to line up a grand, mass departure; Of which she was certain no one could outsmart her.