Trade Secrets/Data Privacy

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series of posts, we began the discussion of what the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), enacted in May 2016, really means for employers in defending their trade secrets.  In particular, we addressed some of the “good” the DTSA offers for employers, including:  (1) a clear path to federal court, (2) ex parte seizure orders and (3) international application.  In Part 3, we addressed the bad — four potential downsides of the DTSA for employers, including mandatory disclosure of whistleblower protections.  In this final Part 4, we outline questions left unanswered by the DTSA which are worth watching for future developments. Continue Reading The Defend Trade Secrets Act: What Does it Really Mean for Employers? The Good, the Bad and the Ambiguous, Part 4

Last Fall’s election, where so much was said about hacked emails, should serve as a reminder to employers that cyber security is of the utmost important.  Cyber crime continues to rise across the globe.  In some European countries it even outpaces traditional crime.  A single data breach can cost a company millions of dollars in lost revenue, fines, and corrective action, not to mention the damages to its reputation and brand loyalty.  So what are the biggest cyber threats and how can businesses best defend against them? Continue Reading Cyber Security & Employees

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series of posts, we began the discussion of what the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), enacted in May 2016, really means for employers in defending their trade secrets.  In particular, we addressed some of the “good” the DTSA offers for employers, including:  (1) a clear path to federal court, (2) ex parte seizure orders and (3) international application.  In this Part 3, we address the bad — four potential downsides of the DTSA for employers. Continue Reading The Defend Trade Secrets Act: What Does it Really Mean for Employers? The Good, the Bad and the Ambiguous, Part 3

In Part 1 of this post, we began the discussion of what the Defend Trade Secrets Act, passed in May 2016, really means for employers in defending their trade secrets.  In particular, Part 1 addressed some of the “good” the DTSA offers for employers, particularly:  (1) a clear path to federal court, (2) consistency in application, and (3) ex parte seizure orders.  In this Part 2, we address the rest of the good — five more positive benefits of the DTSA for employers. Continue Reading The Defend Trade Secrets Act: What Does it Really Mean for Employers? The Good, the Bad and the Ambiguous, Part 2

A Gartner Inc. Executive Program survey predicts that 50% of companies will require employees to provide their own devices for their jobs by 2017. If your employees use their own mobile phones to do work, it’s quite possible your company’s confidential information walks out the door every night. This raises cybersecurity concerns for a company’s intellectual property and confidential trade secrets. The need to secure a company’s protected information must also be balanced with an employee’s right to privacy. However, technology continues to push the expectation of worker productivity to wearable technologies (Apple Watch, anyone?). Does your company employ a BYOD policy? Are you confident that your company’s information is secure? Continue Reading Is Your Company’s Confidential Information Leaving at 5 p.m.?

Online forums where anyone can post comments, reviews, or opinions about a company are growing in popularity.  As a result, employers are finding postings by former employees who may have left on “bad” terms and now share their unhappy feelings with the world.  Often such postings – while annoying and potentially embarrassing – are well within an employee’s rights.  Companies need to remember that the former employee will likely soon grow tired of the cyber smear campaign, and such posts do not often cause meaningful damages (particularly the type that can be proven in court).  Additionally, where such posts are on sites like Twitter or Facebook, the daily volume of postings means that any bothersome posts get moved down the feed pretty quickly.  Most of the time the employer’s best bet is to follow the advice of Disney’s “Frozen” and just “Let it Go.” Continue Reading Cyber Threats and Online Defamation: Options When Former Employees Won’t Let Go

Georgia’s new statutory law of restrictive covenants became effective more than three years ago, on May 11, 2011.  The significance of the new law cannot be overstated.  Prior to the new law, Georgia Courts were required to follow sometimes arcane rules of construction that frequently resulted in covenants being invalidated in their entirety based on what seemed to be trivial defects. Continue Reading Remember “5/11”

Earlier this week, we discussed how when drafting or reviewing a restrictive covenant, few are likely to devote any significant attention to the provisions in the “Miscellaneous” section of the agreement, and how this is a significant mistake.  In particular, we discussed how forum selection clauses are extremely important when drafting restrictive covenant agreements.

 

In this post, we are considering Choice of Law and Arbitration provisions.

Continue Reading Provisions That Could Sink Your Restrictive Covenant–Part Two

When drafting or reviewing a restrictive covenant, you are likely to spend a significant amount of time considering its specific purpose and scope.

Few, however, are likely to devote any significant attention to the remaining provisions in document, including the likely “Miscellaneous” portion that is almost always a part of the agreement.  This is a mistake.  There are numerous provisions contained in this section that can, in some circumstances, be outcome-determinative.  Below is a consideration of three such provisions and their importance to your agreement.

Continue Reading Provisions That Could Sink Your Restrictive Covenant–Part One

Our firm’s latest “Advisory” just went out this afternoon explaining the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals‘ ruling from last Friday that President Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, and therefore the Board was without the required quorum to act in a case from last year in which it found a soda-bottling company had committed an unfair labor practice.

This case involves a fascinating legal issue of the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches (at least for those who find such things fascinating).  This decision is also good news for a particular soda-bottling company that challenged the NLRB’s decision. Continue Reading NLRB Board Appointments Ruled Invalid — What Does This Mean for Employers?