Following a nationwide trend, New Jersey recently joined a growing list of states seeking to limit the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements by employers.
On August 13, 2021, Governor Pritzker signed into law a bill amending the Illinois Freedom to Work Act governing restrictive covenants and non-competition agreements. On May 30, 2021, the Illinois General Assembly passed a bill codifying existing noncompete law in some respects and modifying it in others. We detailed the Bill in a prior blog here. The Bill is now the law. The amendments become effective on January 1, 2022 and will not apply retroactively.
Continue Reading Illinois Governor Signs Non-Compete Legislation
Following a nationwide trend, Illinois has proposed significant legislation affecting employee restrictive covenants, such as non-compete agreements. While the proposed law does not dramatically change most aspects of the patchwork of Illinois common law, it adds certainty to long-questioned areas and imposes several threshold hurdles and eligibility factors to the test for assessing enforceable restrictive covenants.
Continue Reading What Employers Need to Know About New Non-Compete Legislation in Illinois
Because nearly every company has a workforce, labor and employment issues permeate nearly every transaction. Employment-law successor liability presents a substantial risk in transactions even when purchase agreements seemingly contain…
Continue Reading The Critical Nature of Labor and Employment Diligence in Transactions
As if 2020 hasn’t caused enough hardship and headaches for employers already, the FBI and U.S. Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) recently issued a joint Cybersecurity Advisory Alert warning employers about the rise in voice phishing, or “vishing,” scams targeting remote workers. …
Continue Reading Cybercrime 2020 – The Rise of “Vishing”
For the first time, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The Court’s initial review of the CFAA comes in the wake of a federal circuit split as to whether the statute can only be deployed against hackers and unauthorized users of electronic systems, or also against authorized users who use the information for unauthorized purposes. The Court’s decision may significantly affect not only how law enforcement uses the CFAA, but also whether civil litigants, such as employers, may use the CFAA to defend against unauthorized employee activities.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Case Preview—Van Buren v. United States: Does Use of a Computer for an “Improper Purpose” Violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
We first wrote on this topic nearly a year ago. Since then, courts have had an opportunity to interpret some of the provisions of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Indeed, since it was signed into law, more than 360 DTSA claims have been filed, with more than 343 complaints filed in federal court. California has seen more of these cases than any other state, finding itself host to over 15% of all DTSA claims.
As we addressed in our previous blog, there are some key distinctions between the DTSA and California’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (CUTSA) that may inform companies how to run their businesses and prepare for litigation should it be necessary. Some of these distinctions have come into greater focus as courts have interpreted the DTSA, at times with surprising results.
Continue Reading UPDATE: The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act vs. The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act
Since its passage in 2016, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) has increasingly become a valuable tool for employers seeking to enjoin former employees and competitors from misappropriating trade secrets. However, in requests for preliminary injunctive relief, companies often struggle with adequately alleging a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims under both the DTSA and state trade secret laws. A recent case filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Cortz, Inc. v. Doheny Enterprises, Inc., exemplifies this struggle and offers valuable lessons when moving for a preliminary injunction on a trade secret misappropriation claim.
Continue Reading Lessons Learned: Tips on How to Allege and Argue Trade Secret Misappropriation at a Preliminary Injunction Hearing
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (the “DTSA”), the first of its kind at the federal level, has been passed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Now, the DTSA merely awaits President Obama’s expected signature to become law. The DTSA has the potential to transform trade secret litigation and create more uniform case law nationwide.
Continue Reading The Defend Trade Secrets Act – Coming to a Federal Court Near You
On April 24, 2013, a federal jury in the Northern District of California found former Korn/Ferry International corporate executive recruiter, David Nosal, guilty on six counts of conspiracy, stealing trade secrets, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”). An appeal is expected, however.
Continue Reading Federal Jury Finds Executive Recruiter Guilty Stealing Trade Secrets From Former Employer In Order to Start Competing Business
A recent decision by a California Court of Appeal should give employers pause before they use California’s trade secret laws to try to stifle competition in violation of California law.
In the case of FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, the Court of Appeal affirmed a decision by the trial court awarding $1,641,216.78 in attorneys’ fees and costs to two former employees who successfully defended a trade secret action brought by their former employer. The Court agreed with the trial court that the action was filed and maintained in bad faith within the meaning of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Continue Reading Employers Should Carefully Consider Whether To Sue Former Employees For Threatened Trade Secret Misappropriation Based On Recent California Court of Appeal Decision Awarding Over $1.6 Million To Former Employees