Trade Secrets

In the fourth installment of our video series on trade secret litigation,  Adam Samansky discusses the importance of taking a holistic approach to intellectual property, looking at both patent and trade secret protection where appropriate.

Companies can minimize trade secret theft by business partners by instituting non-disclosure agreements before sharing trade secrets and establishing general confidentiality agreements with business partners.

By proactively protecting trade secrets and using litigation strategically, companies can minimize trade secret misappropriation by former employees.

Companies can quickly detect trade secret theft by planting an unneeded feature or part that would be included in a copycat item and continually monitoring competitors’ new products.

Companies can lower the risk of trade secret theft amid a reduction in force by limiting and auditing the use of trade secrets and including confidentiality provisions in severance agreements.

In the latest installment of our video series on trade secret litigation, Nick Armingtion provides an overview of the two types of relief available to parties who have had their trade secrets stolen – injunctions and damages. 

Companies across the United States quickly rolled out remote work arrangements in response to the COVID-19 health crisis, and as virus caseloads continue to climb, the trend is likely to continue. As working off-site becomes “the new normal,” companies can institute systems and policies to protect their valuable trade secrets.

In the second of a series of videos discussing developments in trade secret litigation, Mintz’s Adam Samansky discusses steps companies can take to implement reasonable protective measures to maintain secrecy of information in this remote work environment including confidentiality agreements, trade secret protection plans, and restricting access. 

The sharp upswing in trade secret litigation triggered by the global financial crisis of the late 2000s taught companies some hard lessons about trade secret theft and disputes.

An economic downturn usually leads to a rise in trade secret theft and litigation, and the current slump is likely to generate a major surge in cases due in part to the prevalence of remote work.

In the first of a series of videos discussing developments in trade secret litigation, Mintz’s Nick Armington explains why the volume of trade secret litigation in state and federal courts is expected to greatly increase over the next five years as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The coronavirus pandemic has created profound changes to how many Americans do their work, with an outsized number now working from home. This arrangement, while necessary given social distancing requirements and the stay-at-home advisories in many states, has created a marked increase to the threat of trade secret misappropriation.

Earlier this month, a Northern District of Illinois jury returned a verdict in favor of Motorola for over $700 million after a trial in which Motorola alleged that Hytera hired three engineers away from Motorola’s Malaysian office, and that those engineers stole and brought with them thousands of Motorola’s trade secret technical documents that Hytera used to develop a state-of-the-art digital radio that was functionally indistinguishable from Motorola’s.

The DTSA standing alone provides significant recourse for trade secret owners who have fallen victim to trade secret theft. Apart from the protection provided by the DTSA itself, however, the statute also allows trade secret owners to leverage the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a statute passed to address organized crime, to combat trade secret misappropriation. The DTSA does this by making trade secret theft qualify as a predicate act sufficient to show racketeering activity under RICO. This fairly new tool gives trade secret owners another potent option when confronting trade secret theft.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently granted immunity under the whistleblower provision of the Defend Trade Secret Act in what appears to be the first decision of its kind under the new federal trade secret statute.

Speed is almost always of the essence for the victim of trade secret misappropriation. Many companies ground their business in proprietary information that, if made public, would make the exclusive product or service those companies provide a commodity good.

The Defend Trade Secrets Acts (DTSA) provides an important tool for any company possessing trade secrets to bring a suit in federal court to remedy and prevent dissemination of a misappropriated trade secret.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) Ex Parte Seizure mechanism allows victims of trade secret misappropriation to quickly prevent further dissemination of confidential information by asking a court to direct federal marshals to seize stolen trade secret material and secure that material during the pendency of a formal DTSA case.

A recent decision in the Northern District of Illinois gave life to the inevitable disclosure doctrine under the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

A recent decision in the Western District of Kentucky highlights the importance of explaining in a complaint under the Defend Trade Secrets Act why the allegedly misappropriated information qualifies for trade secret protection.