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 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.
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.
An eternal debate in trade secrets cases is how much exposure the defendant's business personnel can get to the information that their company has allegedly misappropriated. This fight proved to be the first instance in which the Texas Supreme Court opined on that state's new trade secrets statute.
One question that often arises in the trade secret practice is what information, if any, can be protectable as confidential information even if it does not qualify under state law as a trade secret. In other words, what is the value of having a non-disclosure of confidential information provision in an agreement? What does that type of provision do that statutory or common law trade secret protections don't already provide?
A recent case from the Sixth ...
Congress is at it again, introducing legislation that would create a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. But this time, support is not only bipartisan, it is bicameral. Read on to get the details.
Following the lead of 46 other states and the District of Columbia, New Jersey has passed its own version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The law has been sent to the Governor for signature.