Trade Secret Saturdays is a new initiative for a weekly round-up of articles and blog posts focused on trade secrets that caught our attention or that should be on your company’s radar screen. Enjoy.
In today’s competitive marketplace trade secrets are an organization’s most valuable asset. The only way to ensure protection of a trade secret is to keep the information confidential.
A recent federal court decision in California illustrates the care that plaintiffs should take when pleading their own claims in trade secrets cases, lest they provide defendants a ready basis for dismissal.
As in-house counsel, how would you like to tell your CEO: “While our customer lists, pricing information, and business processes are trade secrets, we can’t sue the independent contractor who stole them because we did not do enough to protect those trade secrets.”
Towards the end of 2013, the European Commission (EC) published proposals to reform trade secrets law across Europe, in order to make it easier for the holders of trade secrets holders to protect these and enforce their rights.
A year ago, we reported on a recent important change to the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”), making the theft, transmission, or receipt of trade secrets a federal crime.
The European Commission has announced a proposal for a directive “on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure.”
The European Commission has published proposals to reform trade secrets law across Europe, in an effort to make it easier for national courts to deal with employees and former employees unlawfully taking, using and profiting from confidential business information.
As the size, complexity, and interconnectedness of modern companies’ IT infrastructures has increased, so too has the risk of corporate espionage and cyber attacks targeting companies’ intellectual property.
Georgia Federal Court Disregards Forum Selection Clause in Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Covenant Dispute
Notwithstanding a forum-selection provision in the parties’ consulting agreement designating the Northern District of Georgia as the place for litigating non-competition and non-solicitation covenants disputes, a Georgia federal judge transferred covenant violation litigation to the Middle District of Florida.