Trade Secret Misappropriation

Subscribe to Trade Secret Misappropriation via RSS

The Sunshine State just got brighter for Florida employers seeking to enforce non-compete agreements. On April 24, 2025, the Florida legislature passed the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act (the “Act”). The Act—which took effect on July 1, 2025—significantly enhances the enforceability of both non-compete and garden leave agreements in Florida. As a result, Florida may now be the most non-compete friendly state in the nation.Continue Reading Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Florida’s New Non-Compete Law Shakes Up the Sunshine State

Effective July 1, 2025, Wyoming will restrict the enforceability of non-compete agreements. In enacting Senate Bill 107, Wyoming joins a growing list of states that have significantly restricted, or completely banned, non-compete agreements.Continue Reading Have Employees in Wyoming? Start Preparing for the Non-Compete Ban

A recent federal district court ruling serves as an important reminder that a former employee may be held liable for trade secret misappropriation even if the alleged trade secrets are not physically or electronically taken by the departing employee, but instead retained only in memory.Continue Reading Evidence of a Defendant’s Physical or Digital Retention of Trade Secret Information Is Not Required to Prove Trade Secret Misappropriation Under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act

As we previously reported here in March 2020, the implementation of remote work policies heightens the risk of misappropriation of trade secrets in remote work environments and could require businesses to take additional steps to ensure the security of their trade secrets and confidential information. In the last few years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has charged several individuals with insider trading after they misappropriated material, nonpublic information obtained as a result of their remote work environment.[1] Most recently, a man was charged with insider trading after misappropriating trade secrets he obtained by listening to his wife’s[2] business calls while the two worked from home.Continue Reading Lesson Learned: Man Charged with Insider Trading After Misappropriating Information from Wife’s Work-From-Home Calls

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.Continue Reading What Employers Need to Know About Newly Proposed Non-Compete Legislation in New Jersey

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

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[1]. 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