Over the past few years, California has enacted legislation that requires public companies in California to meet certain diversity metrics with respect to their boards of directors. These board-specific requirements follow the development of empirical data that supports the following conclusions: (1) diversity in public corporations’ boards of directors was severely lacking and (2) diversity
We are rapidly approaching the fifth anniversary of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq. (effective May 2016). As many know, the statute amended sections of the previously enacted Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA), Pub. L. No. 104-294, which had criminalized the theft of trade secrets in certain contexts.
Although California generally prohibits non-competition agreements, employers have commonly understood that they could prevent an employee and his or her new employer from using former employers’ confidential information. A recent California appellate case, however, has called into question the enforceability of overbroad confidentiality provisions commonly found in employment contracts. Brown v TGS Management Company, LLC,
Many employers and attorneys assume that covenants not to compete found in employment agreements are not enforceable against California residents absent narrow exceptions, and that courts would reject any attempt to apply another state’s choice of law provision to draft around this issue. A recent case from the Delaware Chancery Court, NuVasive, Inc. v. Patrick
Although California law generally prohibits non-competition agreements, some courts in a number of unpublished opinions have enforced non-solicitation clauses restricting former employees from pirating their former colleagues. A California appellate court, however, recently invalidated such a provision in a published opinion, calling into question an employer’s ability to rely upon such agreements.
Greenberg Traurig recently published a multi-country survey InfoPAKSM on covenants not to compete through the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Covenants not to compete are important for employers to consider in order to protect proprietary information such as trade secrets, intellectual property, and highly confidential information. However, these post- employment restrictions vary country
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) celebrates its one-year anniversary on May 11, 2017. The DTSA is the most significant expansion of intellectual property law since the Lanham Act was passed in the 1940s. Approximately 70 cases were filed in California federal courts asserting DTSA claims in the past year; but, after one year of
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) into law. The DTSA is immediately effective, and applies to misappropriation that occurs after its enactment. The DTSA is the most significant expansion of intellectual property law since the Lanham Act was passed in the 1940s. The DTSA largely tracks the Uniform
On April 27, 2016, Congress passed the “Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.” The Act (the DTSA) passed the House by a vote of 410 to 2. The bill passed the Senate April 4, 2016, by a vote of 87 to 0. Congress enacted the DTSA largely due to its concerns about Chinese espionage and
Greenberg Traurig recently published an InfoPAKSM on covenants not to compete through the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Covenants not to compete are important for employers to consider in order to protect proprietary information such as trade secrets, intellectual property, and highly confidential information. However, these post-employment restrictions vary state by state. These