Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility

U.S. v. Pu presents another instance of a trade secret theft case with an international component that the federal authorities have decided to prosecute.

Alleged thefts of trade secrets are generally handled through the civil court system, and rarely result in criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, where there is an international component to the case or where the magnitude of the alleged theft is particularly significant, the prosecuting authorities will step in, as recently happened in Chicago.

A recent decision from the First Circuit Court of Appeals serves as a cautionary tale for companies to make sure that they review the language and structure of restrictive covenants that they may be purchasing as part of an acquisition.

When drafting no-competes, questions about the required level of detail always arise; more detail is generally better than less, but not always. The required level of detail in a no-compete was among the questions addressed in a recent decision by the Ohio Court of Appeals.

The Illinois Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in a case that could resolve the current confusion with regard to non-compete law among Illinois' appellate districts.

A recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit highlights the danger in not including a tolling provision in a restrictive covenant agreement.

The national law firm of EpsteinBeckerGreen, in conjunction with the Practical Law Company, recently wrote and published a statewide guide on the trade secrets laws of Connecticut. The guide is now available for downloading.

Contrary to popular perception, California law does not bar all restrictive covenants in the employment context. Rather, in certain very narrow circumstances (i.e., non-competes arising in connection with the sale or dissolution of certain businesses), non-competes are permissible under California law.

In a recent decision in the matter Alliance Bernstein, L.P. v. William Clements, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Justice Louis B. York), enjoined a former employee of AllianceBernstein, L.P. ("AllianceBernstein") from working for a competitor for 60 days, pursuant to a provision in an agreement requiring the individual to provide 60 days notice of his intention to resign. Although the original 60 days extending from the date of his resignation had already elapsed, the Court in effect granted a new 60 day period of non-competition, because the individual had started working for the competitor immediately upon his resignation from AllianceBernstein.