Top Developments/Headlines in Trade Secret, Computer Fraud, and Non-Compete Law in 2016

1 02 2017

Continuing our annual tradition, we present the top developments/headlines for 2016 in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law. Please join us for our first webinar of the New Year on February 2, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. Central, where we will discuss these new developments, their potential implications, and our predictions for 2017.

1. Defend Trade Secrets Act

2. EU Trade Secrets Directive

3. Government Agencies Continue to Scrutinize the Scope of Non-Disclosure and Restrictive Covenant Agreements

4. New State Legislation Regarding Restrictive Covenants

 

5. Noteworthy Trade Secret, Computer Fraud, and Non-Compete Cases

 

6. Forum Selection Clauses

7. Security Breaches and Data Theft Remain Prevalent

8. The ITC’s Extraterritorial Authority in Trade Secret Disputes

 

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2017/01/articles/dtsa/top-developmentsheadlines-in-trade-secret-computer-fraud-and-non-compete-law-in-2016/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



D.C. Circuit Upholds NLRB Finding that Employment Agreement’s Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions Violated the NLRA

30 01 2017

 

Back in 2013, an NLRB administrative law judge found that certain confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions contained in Quicken’s Mortgage Banker Employment Agreement violated the NLRA (see our earlier blog post here). The Board agreed with the ALJ, and the Company petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review. Recently a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit denied the Company’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement, finding that there was nothing arbitrary or capricious about the Board’s decision and there was no abuse of discretion in the Board’s hearing process (Case No. 14-1231).

Facts

As a condition of employment, mortgage bankers were required to sign a Mortgage Banker Employment Agreement that included a confidentiality provision and a non-disparagement provision. The confidentiality provision prohibited employees from disclosing nonpublic information regarding the company’s personnel, including personnel lists, handbooks, personnel files, and personnel information of coworkers such as phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses. The non-disparagement provision prohibited employees from publicly criticizing, ridiculing, disparaging or defaming the company or its products, services, policies, directors, officers, shareholders or employees.

Court’s Reasoning

….

In finding that the Board properly determined that the confidentiality provision violated employees’ Section 7 rights, the court noted that the very information the provision forbids employees from sharing (i.e., personnel lists and employee rosters) has long been recognized as information that employees must be permitted to gather and share among themselves and with union organizers. With respect to the non-disparagement provision, the court found that the Board “quite reasonably found that such a sweeping gag order would significantly impede mortgage bankers’ exercise of their Section 7 rights because it directly forbids them to express negative opinions about the company, its policies, and its leadership in almost any public forum.”

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2016/08/articles/restrictive-covenants/8146/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Top Developments/Headlines in Trade Secret, Computer Fraud, and Non-Compete Law in 2016

27 01 2017

Continuing our annual tradition, we present the top developments/headlines for 2016 in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law. Please join us for our first webinar of the New Year on February 2, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. Central, where we will discuss these new developments, their potential implications, and our predictions for 2017.

1. Defend Trade Secrets Act

 

2. EU Trade Secrets Directive

3. Government Agencies Continue to Scrutinize the Scope of Non-Disclosure and Restrictive Covenant Agreements

4. New State Legislation Regarding Restrictive Covenants

 

5. Noteworthy Trade Secret, Computer Fraud, and Non-Compete Cases

6. Forum Selection Clauses

 

7. Security Breaches and Data Theft Remain Prevalent

8. The ITC’s Extraterritorial Authority in Trade Secret Disputes

 

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2017/01/articles/trade-secrets/top-developmentsheadlines-in-trade-secret-computer-fraud-and-non-compete-law-in-2016/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Texas Appellate Court Holds Condition Subsequent in Noncompete Agreement Excused Former Employee’s Competitive Activities

4 01 2017

A Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment last month in favor of an ex-employee declaring that a noncompete clause in an asset purchase agreement and separate noncompete agreement did not bar him from competing with his former employer after he had resigned his position. The court’s opinion serves as a reminder that conditions subsequent in noncompete clauses must be drafted with special care in order to avoid the risk that former employees may ignore such clauses with impunity.

 

E. Texas Copy Sys., Inc. v. Player, 06-16-00035-CV, 2016 WL 6638865 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 10, 2016, no. pet. h.).

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2016/12/articles/noncompete-enforceability/texas-appellate-court-holds-condition-subsequent-in-noncompete-agreement-excused-former-employees-competitive-activities/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Employees Bound By Clickthrough Agreements–ADP v. Lynch

12 07 2016

An employer sued two departing employees for joining a competitor. The employer sought to enforce, among other things, a non-compete clause (the court calls it a restrictive covenant). The employer included the non-compete provision in stock option grant documentation presented to employees electronically, which isn’t surprising because employees will agree to just about anything to get their stock option grants. The employees defended the employer’s lawsuit on lack of jurisdiction. The employer pointed to a venue selection clause that was included in the grant documentation along with the non-compete.

 

more

Case citation: ADP, LLC v. Lynch, 2016 WL 3574328 (D. N.J. June 30, 2016)

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/07/employees-bound-by-clickthrough-agreements-adp-v-lynch.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.