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.
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.
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?