The War Against Trade Secret Theft – A New Weapon
Time 2 Minute Read

Congress gave companies a new weapon to fight trade secret theft this week. President Obama signed a law that addresses several issues that often mire trade secret litigation – cross border battles when multiple states are involved, venue and choice of law disputes, and lack of ability to seize trade secrets before they escape a state or the United States. Companies now have a civil federal cause of action (original federal jurisdiction) for trade secret theft and the ability to seize trade secrets through an ex parte temporary injunction procedure that could prove to be incredibly costly for the unfortunate company whose newly hired employee stole trade secrets from a former employer. There will be more to come on these elements over the next few weeks.

One interesting facet of the new law is that it was largely pitched as a tool for United States companies to protect trade secrets from foreign theft. As the President stated when signing the law:

"One of the biggest advantages that we've got in this global economy is that we innovate," Obama said at a signing ceremony while flanked by a bipartisan congressional delegation. "We come up with new services, new goods, new products, new technologies. Unfortunately, all too often, some of our competitors, instead of competing with us fairly, are trying to steal these trade secrets from American companies, and that means a loss of American jobs, a loss of American markets, a loss of American leadership."

However, the law is definitely not limited to foreign theft. Civil litigators who prosecute trade secret theft in the various states will be comfortable with the definition of “trade secrets” in the law, with the remedies available and the threat of attorneys’ fees being awarded for bad faith claims. All are similar to what currently exists in many states.

Whether practitioners will ultimately choose to pursue federal claims for trade secret theft over state law remedies (there is no preemption) will remain to be seen. State forums and statutes may be preferable for many cases. However, there will now be a decision to be made at the outset whether a matter should be in federal or state court. In future posts, we will dive deeper into the key features of the new law and what employers should know about them. Stay tuned.

  • Partner

    Ryan has a national practice focused on representing employers and executives in complex labor and employment litigation.  Ryan’s litigation experience is both broad and deep, and he is particularly skilled in defending ...

  • Partner

    Roland’s practice focuses on employment and labor law. Roland has exclusively handled employment cases since 1992. Roland’s experience includes handling cases of first impression in California involving class actions ...

  • Partner

    Bob is a litigator who represents businesses in resolving their complex labor, employment, trade secret, non-compete and related commercial disputes. He is recognized by Chambers USA as a leader in Labor & Employment, and as a Labor ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 1 Minute Read

Please join Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP for a complimentary webinar: Trade Secrets Litigation 101 – Preventing and Addressing Employee Data Theft (Part 2).  The CLE webinar will be presented on Thursday, October 10, 2024.  Registration open.

Time 5 Minute Read

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted on April 23 to approve a final rule banning most non-compete agreements between employers and their workers (Final Rule). The Final Rule is scheduled to go into effect 120 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which will likely occur in the next few weeks, though legal challenges may delay the Final Rule’s effective date and FTC enforcement actions.

Time 1 Minute Read

HuntonAK labor and employment partner Roland Juarez was listed among the Los Angeles Business Journal’s 2021 Top Leaders of Influence: Top Litigators & Trial Lawyers. This is Roland’s third consecutive year to be included, he was selected from over 300 nominations.

Time 3 Minute Read

In recent years, there has been a growing trend amongst litigants of protecting documents filed as part of the judicial record from public view by sealing them by agreement under a protective order.  However, a recent opinion out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit criticizes this now-common practice.  Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., No. 20-10377, ––– F.3d –––, 2021 WL 838266 (5th Cir. March 5, 2021).

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page