Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility

An updated version of our guide, "Non-Compete Laws: Illinois," is now available. It reflects the recent decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in Reliable Fire Equipment Company v. Arredondo, et al., which resolved several years of confusion over the appropriate standard for enforcing non-compete agreements in Illinois.

On December 1, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its opinion in Reliable Fire Equipment Company v. Arredondo, et al., which resolved several years of confusion over the appropriate standard for enforcing non-compete agreements in Illinois.

Several attorneys from the national law firm of EpsteinBeckerGreen contributed to the December 2011 issue of the Practical Law Company's "Labor and Employment."

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia reaffirmed that a non-compete agreement will likely be enforceable if it is narrowly drawn to protect the employer's legitimate business interest.

A recent opinion from the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District demonstrates that before a litigant moves to compel trade secret information which it deems critical to its prosecution or defense of a claim, it must fully develop the trial court record and present particularized evidence to establish why the information is relevant and necessary.

A recent opinion from the Supreme Court of Kansas held that multiple jury instructions which had led to a verdict for a plaintiff asserting claims of trade secret misappropriation and breach of certain restrictive covenants were erroneous, and accordingly reversed the jury verdict and remanded the action back to the trial court.

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.