Last month, Panera, the sandwich company perhaps best known for its “You-Pick-Two”® soup-salad-sandwich offering, brought suit under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) against Michael Nettles, a former Panera executive who left the bread bowl purveyor for employment with Papa Johns.
American corporations are facing an ever increasing threat of misappropriation of their valuable trade secrets through industrial espionage, defined as the theft of a company’s trade secrets by an actor intending to convert the trade secret to the economic benefit of a competitor.
These days, licensing between affiliate members of a multinational corporate family is prevalent.
Trade secrets are a valuable type of intellectual property—and they’re now subject to a number of federal protections similar to patents, copyrights and trademarks.
While the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act has been in effect since January of 2012, there have been no reported cases interpreting the Act until this year when the Court considered Baxter Healthcare Corporation v. HQ Specialty Pharma Corporation.
Last month, two New England states enacted laws restricting the use of non-competition provisions in agreements governing an employment, partnership or other professional relationship of a physician.
In California, a trade secret is economically valuable information not generally known to the public and that the owner makes reasonable efforts to keep secret.
Not long after my article discussing the interplay between the Defend Trade Secret Act (DTSA) injunction provisions and California non-competition law, a federal district court in the Northern District of California opined on this exact issue in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, No. 16-CV-03166-JST, 2016 WL 3418537 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2016).
The Massachusetts legislature ended its 2015-2106 session on July 31, 2016, and lawmakers did not pass new legislation regarding non-compete agreements before doing so.
Trade secret litigators in California are familiar with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210. That section requires plaintiffs to identify their alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity.”