BLOGS: Trade Secrets Blog

Powered by Blogger
Add to Technorati Favorites

Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 6/30/2009 09:01:00 AM

Abbott Laboratories Sues Departing Employee and New Employer, Alleging Inevitability of Trade Secret Misappropriation

By Todd

Defendant Susan Mancheski, a former Upper Midwest Regional Manager at Abbott and former member of and Regional Manager ("RM") Advisor to Abbott's Sales & Marketing Advisory Board, resigned her position with Abbott to join its direct competitor, Defendant ev3, Inc. She had an employment agreement with Abbott.

The Employee Agreement allegedly prohibits Mancheski, for the period of one year following the termination of her employment with Abbott, from engaging in activities or employment (a) that contribute to the development, marketing, promotion or sale of products that compete with Abbott products for which Mancheski previously had responsibility, or (b) in which she would use or divulge Abbott's confidential information.

Allegedly, ev3 recently informed Abbott that Mancheski has accepted a job with ev3 in which she will market for ev3 the directly competing endovascular products over which she had extensive responsibilities and about which she gained substantial confidential information during her employment with Abbott. ev3 has allegedly acknowledged that Mancheski will market those competing products to some of Abbott's (and Mancheski's former) customers.

A copy of the complaint is attached above. Abbott has alleged, as you'll see, that Ms. Mancheski lied like crazy as part of her resignation and exit interview process. Her alleged lie? About where she was going to work. NOTE TO DEPARTING EMPLOYEES - don't lie about your having accepted an employment offer from a direct competitor. Your lie won't fool anybody for long and it will be used as a sword against you if your former employer decides to sue.

Saturday, June 27, 2009, 6/27/2009 05:28:00 PM

Economic Espionage at the Paint Factory

From the Daily Herald of Arlington, Illinois, a report on an indictment from the ubiquitous U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, charging Arlington Heights resident David Yen Lee on five count of economic espionage based on stolen trade secrets he sought to divulge to a competitor of his former employer, paint company Valspar Corp.
We first blogged about this case back in March when Mr. Lee was arrested:

According to the indictment, the 52-year-old Lee worked as technical director of new product development for Valspar. Lee, the indictment claims, downloaded documents and data from Valspar and its China subsidiary, Huarun Ltd., to an external thumb drive authorities found during a March search of Lee's home.

Lee had abruptly resigned from Valspar in mid-March, shortly after purchasing a one-way ticket to Shanghai, authorities say.

According to the story, if convicted, he could face a maximum of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count in the indictment.

No one, of course, has ever gotten that maximum sentence.

Thursday, June 25, 2009, 6/25/2009 11:29:00 AM

Trade Secrets and Televangelism

From the San Jose Mercury News, a story about a California lawsuit in which a California man has sued Georgia-based televangelist, Creflo Dollar (he’s the one pictured in the white suit), with stealing her ideas and trade secrets.

According to the story, the lawsuit was filed by Devone Lawson of Marina del Rey who is seeking in excess of $10 million for breach of nondisclosure agreement, fraud, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, and misappropriation of trade secrets.

Lawson claims that he spent 2004 working with Dollar's World Changers Church International ministry on a subscription service that would send daily inspirational text messages to church members' cell phones.
He claims that Dollar pulled the plug on him and went with another company for the service. The Mercury News reports that attorneys for Lawson estimate the $4.99 per month subscription service generates more than $50 million a year in revenue.

Hardly chump change.

Monday, June 22, 2009, 6/22/2009 06:03:00 PM

$1.6 Million Bad Faith Trade Secret Defense Attorney Fee Award Upheld in California Appellate Decision

By Todd

Readers of this blog might know that most states have adopted some version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act's Section 4 regarding attorney's fees: "If (i) a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, (ii) a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or (iii) willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party. " This is California's version: "3426.4. If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party. Recoverable costs hereunder shall include a reasonable sum to cover the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the prevailing party."

Law360 is reporting that a California state appeals court has affirmed an award of $1.6 million in attorneys' fees to two former employees of thermal-imaging company FLIR Systems Inc. accused of trade secrets misappropriation when they left to start their own business.

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, on June 15 agreed that the action was filed and maintained in bad faith within the meaning of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
FLIR suffered no economic harm, and no misappropriation or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets occurred as a result of the two employees' actions, the appeals court said.

“The complaint alleges that appellants suffered 'actual damages' and that respondents willfully and maliciously converted appellants' trade secrets 'with the deliberate intent to injure [appellants'] business,'” Judge Kenneth R. Yegan wrote for the court. “The evidence, however, showed no 'actual damages,' ... and no threat of imminent harm.”

The doctrine of inevitable disclosure is not recognized in California because it contravenes a strong public policy of employee mobility that permits ex-employees to start new entrepreneurial endeavors, according to the appeals court.

The Court of Appeal further pointed out that FLIR did not seek an order compelling the two employees, William Parrish and Timothy Fitzgibbons, to return anything and that the company imposed unnecessary settlement conditions, among other things.

In addition to affirming the original $1.6 million fees award, the appeals court also granted costs and attorneys' fees on appeal in an amount to be determined by the trial court.

The dispute goes back to 2004, when FLIR acquired Indigo Systems Corp., including its intellectual property, for about $185 million.

Indigo sold microbolometers, a device used in connection with infrared cameras, night vision and thermal imaging, whereas FLIR sold the infrared cameras, night vision products and thermal-imaging systems themselves.

Parrish and Fitzgibbons were shareholders and officers of Indigo. After the acquisition, they continued working at Indigo, but in 2005, they decided to start a new company to mass produce bolometers. They officially quit in January 2006.

Originally, Parrish and Fitzgibbons discussed allowing FLIR to participate in their new business plan, but ”FLIR rejected the offer and wished respondents success in the new endeavor,” according to the appeals court.

Soon after, the two entered into negotiations with military contractor Raytheon Corp. to acquire licensing, technology and manufacturing facilities.

“Respondents assured appellants they would not misappropriate Indigo's trade secrets and that the new company would use an intellectual property filter similar to the one used at Indigo to prevent the misuse of trade secrets,” the appeals court said.

But fearful of the new competition, FLIR sued for injunctive relief and damages in June 2006, claiming that Parrish and Fitzgibbons could not mass produce low-cost microbolometers based on their business plan's time line without misappropriating trade secrets.

On learning of the lawsuit, Raytheon terminated its business discussions with Parrish and Fitzgibbons. But in June 2008, Judge James W. Brown of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, entered a final judgment in their favor.

This is a major-league appellate approval of an imposition of bad faith attorney's fee monies. We are going to look for a copy of this decision and will report back any aspect of the reasoning not already covered in the report above.
One question that comes to mind is: why didn't FLIR dismiss its claims against the defendants after it did a little discovery and learned that its claims of misappropriation wouldn't be supported by the evidence? The question is asked because a voluntary dismissal would conceivably deprive the court of jurisdiction and would have stopped the defense fee bleeding that was ultimately incurred in this matter.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 6/16/2009 02:32:00 PM

FTC Lawsuit Results in Subpoenaed Trade Secret Info That Itself Might Get Subpoenaed in Another Case

By Todd

We first blogged about the Whole Foods trade secret subpoenas to competitors issue here:

Remember too that the FTC had fumbled with some trade secrets earlier in the matter, as we noted when another competitor objected to the subpoena: "The FTC accidentally disclosed confidential business information earlier in the case, while other sensitive information was given to a Whole Foods in-house lawyer, New Seasons said. An FTC administrative law judge rejected New Seasons' request Tuesday, saying its information would be protected and that turning it over was not an undue burden. "The implied allegations that Whole Foods may be using the document requests to gain a competitive advantage over New Seasons are without support," wrote Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell."

Well, a new lawsuit has arisen - and the plaintiffs want the same information. Click here: Forbes is reporting that an existing protective order exists in the FTC matter - so the FTC administrative law judge apparently is going to have a new issue on his plate now.

We'll keep an eye on this one for you.

Monday, June 15, 2009, 6/15/2009 09:42:00 AM

Men's Health Publisher Seeks to Protect its Trade Secrets in Florida Investigation

By Todd

In an ongoing investigation into the sales and marketing practices of publisher Rodale, the Florida attorney general's office decided to make public the information it gathered. Rodale, publisher of Men's Health and other magazines, recently filed a petition with a Florida circuit court to keep the information private.

The petition seeks to prohibit the attorney general's office from "releasing Rodale's protected trade secret documents and proprietary confidential business information," including customers' names, which the publisher was subpoenaed to produce. A decision on the petition is pending.

Since February 2008, the state AG has been investigating "several negative marketing methods allegedly employed by Rodale, including automatic shipments and automatic subscription renewals, and whether the marketing materials for these methods adequately disclose terms and conditions." The AG's office says it also is looking into whether Rodale "sends consumers merchandise that has not been ordered." Paul McGinley, Rodale's lawyer, counters the publisher "has had marketing materials reviewed by outside counsel consistently for several years."

Friday, June 12, 2009, 6/12/2009 09:31:00 AM

Clorox Inevitable Disclosure Motion Denied - California Law Found Applicable - S.C. Johnson, Ironically, Cleans Up

By Todd

The Clorox Co. wanted a federal judge to keep SC Johnson from employing the man it has hired to be its new senior vice president of global product supply.

Timothy Bailey resigned from Clorox in April, and was expected to start work with SCJ the first week of May. The Oakland, Calif. company has now sued SCJ, claiming violations of laws that protect trade secrets. Bailey worked for Clorox from 1996 until April 14, when he resigned as vice president of product supply.

In the suit, Clorox claims that Bailey, by virtue of his position at the company, knows too much confidential information and that he should be barred from working for SCJ until 2011.“Given the nature of the Clorox trade secret information he possesses, and the substantially similar nature of the positions, Bailey inevitably will use Clorox’s trade secret information in working for S.C. Johnson, to Clorox’s irreparable detriment,” the lawsuit claims.

Among the “trade secrets” Clorox says Bailey possesses are knowledge of the company’s global supply relationships, terms of supplier contracts, price-setting strategies, research and development, company strategies and operations leadership.

Like all Clorox employees, the lawsuit states, Bailey agreed not to directly or indirectly disclose company information to people outside the company.“It is inevitable that Bailey will use or rely on the information that he obtained while working for Clorox in connection with his position at S.C. Johnson and, upon information and belief, Bailey and S.C. Johnson have used, disclosed or threatened to use or disclose Clorox’s confidential, proprietary and trade secret information with full knowledge that this information was acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use,” the suit states.

Clorox's motion for a preliminary injunction, stopping Bailey from working for S.C. Johnson, was denied yesterday. The court found that California, not Wisconsin, law applied to the dispute before the court and then went on to note that California law does not respect the "inevitable disclosure" doctrine. That wasn't good for Clorox - because they're essentially legal theory was an "inevitable disclosure" theory. So - Bailey is now working for S.C. Johnson and Clorox is trying to figure out what to do next.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 6/10/2009 09:17:00 AM

Post-Trial Motions Filed in $36.3 Million Trade Secrets Case Won By Hansen Medical from Luna Innovations

By Todd

This massive trade secrets case stemmed from a 2006 deal between Luna Innovations and Hansen Medical to work together to apply Luna's fiber-optic shape-sensing technology to Hansen's catheter medical device.

The California jury found that Luna not only breached a contract it signed with Hansen to develop technology for a medical device, but that the company also shared Hansen's trade secrets with Intuitive Surgical Inc., one of the largest medical device companies in the country. The 2007 deal with Intuitive was for the supply and development of a navigational aid to be built into future generations of high-tech robotic devices for complex, minimally invasive operations.

In finding in Hansen's favor, the jury said that any intellectual property Luna developed during the work with Hansen belongs to Hansen. Because Luna shared some of that knowledge in its work with Intuitive, Gonzalez said that Hansen will now have to talk to Intuitive or get a court-ordered injunction to prevent Intuitive from using the technology.

Luna has asked a California judge to throw out the $36.3 million jury verdict against it, arguing the award is based on a flawed interpretation of law.

The Roanoke-based technology company filed several post-trial motions Monday offering for the first time since the verdict was issued in late April its concerns with how the trial was carried out and jury verdict rendered.

Even as the legal battle with Hansen Medical Inc. continues, Luna's chief operating officer said there is no bad blood between the two companies and he would be willing to work with Hansen to apply Luna's technology to Hansen's medical device.

"We would like our technology to be used in as many places and as many procedures that could help save lives," COO Scott Graeff said about the application of Luna's technology to medical devices.

Specifically, Luna's lawyers argued Luna is not responsible for lost profits to Hansen. The vast majority of the verdict awarded was for lost profits.

"That a finding of breach of this agreement has somehow resulted in an award of over $26 million in lost profits and other damages is exactly the kind of nightmarish outcome that parties seek to avoid when they negotiate these critical limitations -- and one that cries out for immediate correction here," Luna's lawyers wrote.

The agreement referred to is an $84,100 feasibility study that Luna and Hansen entered into in 2006 to apply Luna's fiber-optic shape-sensing technology to Hansen's catheter. Luna contends that the feasibility study explicitly ruled out an award of lost profits if the deal went sour.

In addition to arguing the $26 million award should be tossed out, Luna argued the $10.2 million awarded for misappropriation of trade secrets was based on poor jury instructions and bad interpretation of the law.

Luna also said while Hansen claimed nine trade secrets were violated, each violation wasn't argued separately. That was an improper application of the law governing misappropriation of trade secrets, Luna said.

"Apparently, Hansen hoped that the jury would be unable to see through the smoke and could be led to find liability through sheer confusion," a portion of one motion reads. "And it succeeded."

Finally, Luna asked that if the judge doesn't agree to throw out the jury award, a new trial be held.

Hansen also filed several motions with the California court in advance of a July 20 hearing where the judge is expected to enter final judgment on the verdict. Until then the jury award is not finalized.

In its motions, Hansen asked for an undisclosed sum for attorney fees and expert costs, $20.4 million in additional damages, an injunction preventing Luna from using the product developed during the initial feasibility study and a license to certain intellectual property related to the case.

Monday, June 08, 2009, 6/08/2009 10:53:00 AM

Upstate New York Beer Prices Are Trade Secret, Complaint Alleges

By Todd

I have an admission to make as a co-author of this blog and the author of this piece - I lived in Ithaca, New York during law school and I drank alot of inexpensive beer while there. Now, with that established -

The Price Chopper grocery chain has filed a $20 million lawsuit against Binghamton Giant Market Inc. for allegedly stealing trade secrets.

The complaint, filed in state Supreme Court in Schenectady on Wednesday, alleges that Giant routinely obtained advance notice of the promotional items and prices that Price Chopper was planning to advertise in the Sunday editions of the Press & Sun-Bulletin to gain unfair competitive advantage.

The suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 million, recovery of the profits and gains that Giant allegedly obtained in the amount of $5 million, and $10 million in punitive damages.
Giant principal Ron Akel declined comment.

Todd E. Hoover, of Greene, a former salesman for beer distributor AL George LLC of Kirkwood, was charged by police April 1 and accused of taking copies of the Price Chopper advertising fliers, prior to their distribution to the public. The suit alleges Hoover delivered those fliers to his supervisor, who in turn would pass the fliers to August O. Kutchinski, operations director for Giant.

Kutchinski said he was unaware of the suit and denied any involvement in what Price Chopper claims occurred.

"That sounds like a good story from somebody," he said. "I don't know what you're talking about. People can say what they want to say."

The complaint alleges Hoover had access to a bottle-storage closet at the Price Chopper store on Glenwood Avenue in Binghamton, where the fliers were stored prior to public distribution.
According to the complaint, surveillance tapes show that on about seven occasions, Hoover took copies of the fliers from the closet and stuffed them down his pants. He routinely took the fliers on Wednesday mornings, prior to when they were distributed to the public on Sunday each week, the complaint said.

The parking lot tapes show Hoover handing the fliers to David J. Cannistra, of Binghamton, on Wednesday mornings on about six occasions, the complaint alleges. Cannistra worked as a supervisor for AL George and was Hoover's immediate superior.

"Upon information and belief," Cannistra would then pass the fliers on to Kutchinski on Wednesday afternoons, the lawsuit said. Price Chopper claims that Giant has used its trade- secret pricing information for years.

Hoover and Cannistra were terminated from their jobs at AL George on April 6, according to the suit, which does not elaborate on the reasons behind the termination.

Hoover, Cannistra and an AL George spokesperson could not be reached for comment.
This "ongoing conspiracy" occurred nearly every Wednesday for at least six months, the suit says.

"It's like someone walking into our stores and stealing our financial records," said Neil Golub, president and chief executive officer of Price Chopper Supermarkets, based in Schenectady.

"People were stealing our ads. They were using that information to change their pricing."
In order to have the fliers inserted into the Sunday paper and ready for distribution, Price Chopper would usually have them printed and prepared over the weekend and delivered to the Press & Sun-Bulletin by Tuesday of each week. Extra copies of the fliers would be delivered to the stores on Tuesday for distribution to customers in the stores on Sunday.

In the suit, Price Chopper said it believes that Giant's Sunday newspaper ads - which run in the middle of the first news section of the paper, and not in a flier insert - can be revised until Friday and possibly Saturday before Sunday distribution.

Golub said Price Chopper now keeps its fliers more secure but wouldn't elaborate.

He added that Hoover was a "known person in the store. He was in there a lot. ... So apparently people didn't pay as much attention to him. He knew he had no business going where he was going."

One thought - if the flyers contained trade secrets regarding price, how does Price Chopper prove it used reasonable means to keep them secret if they were storing the flyers in a bottle-storage closet that competitors or their agents could get access to ?

Thursday, June 04, 2009, 6/04/2009 10:30:00 AM

Crazy "Oops" Voicemail Trade Secrets Case Dismissed After Eight Years for Lack of Standing

By Todd

We've blogged about this crazy case before: and

You'll recall that this exchange was reportedly captured on a voicemail inadvertently left on Jasmine Network's counsel's voicemail system by Marvell's attorneys:

Kaushik Banerjee (the engineer): Who do they think they're working with?
Matthew Gloss (the general counsel): They're f---ing amateurs.
Eric Janofsky (the patent lawyer): You gave me better news than I...
Gloss: Yeah, but you know the problem is so if they're dumping it into Tigo [presumably a code name for a Marvell chip], now that's a problem.
A few moments later...
Janofsky: No, if they gave it to us it is not a criminal problem.
Gloss: Yeah, but what did we induce, what did we solicit, what did we promise, what did we say?...
Janofsky: I don't think--it doesn't look--Sehat doesn't go to jail, obviously.
Gloss: Sehat doesn't go to jail. Manuel might go to jail; Manuel gets a black eye.
Gloss: Sure, a Marvell VP out there promising big option grants in proposed pending acquisitions if technology is transferred in advance...That's what's going on.
Janofsky: I don't see it going to a criminal level. I see it going to a severe civil, civil layer, but not...
Gloss: But still hits, would still hit the financial.

The ABA Journal is reporting that this trade secrets misappropriation case that relies partly on a general counsel’s mistaken voice mail message has been tossed after a late-hour dismissal motion argued a lack of standing.

Santa Clara, Calif., Superior Court Judge Thomas Edwards ruled yesterday that Jasmine Networks Inc. can’t sue Marvell Semiconductor Inc. for alleged stolen trade secrets because Jasmine sold the intellectual property in question.

The dismissal motion was filed by Marvell’s law firm, Latham & Watkins, nearly eight years after the case was first filed, the story says. Latham was hired after Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges was disqualified for a conflict in January, after handling the case for just three months. Other law firms that previously represented Marvell were Buchalter Nemer and, for a brief time, Fenwick & West.

Jasmine’s lawyers had argued the judge overseeing its bankruptcy ruled it had standing to pursue the trade secrets claim despite the sale of its intellectual property.

Jasmine's case relied in part on a tape of Marvell former general counsel Matthew Gloss, recorded when he failed to hang up after calling a Jasmine lawyer. Gloss kept talking to a Marvell engineer and an intellectual property lawyer in a conversation that touched on theft of trade secrets and the unlawful hiring of Jasmine engineers, according to a description in an appeals court ruling.

Marvell recently lost a motion seeking to keep the recording out of evidence, according to the Recorder.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009, 6/02/2009 10:43:00 AM

CDI Energy Services Loses Trade Secrets Appeal in the Eighth Circuit

By Todd

Trade secrets misappropriation cases are routinely teed up for a preliminary injunction at the trial court level. Offended parties argue that they should not be forced to sit and watch a trade secret thief use and benefit from the stolen secrets - that an injunction should be issued to stop the thief in their tracks. The alleged offending parties, of course, respond that the data or information wasn't taken or that it doesn't constitute a trade secret at all - AND, regardless, the information shouldn't be considered a trade secret because the owner didn't use reasonable means to keep the information or data secret and thus lost whatever rights they could've had. Well, these are the arguments that the defendants in a case filed by CDI Energy Services made - and the federal district court and the Eight Circuit appellate court agreed wit the defendants.

A federal appeals court has affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny CDI Energy Services Inc. an injunction and to reject allegations that former employees of the oil field servicer stole trade secrets when they formed their own rival company in 2007.

On May 28th, Judges Michael Melloy, Pasco Bowman and Lavenski Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit shot down CDI’s appeal, holding that the three former employees did not steal CDI’s proprietary information or otherwise merit an injunction for taking clients with them when they created West River Pumps Inc.

The Eighth Circuit found that CDI took no measures to safeguard or protect certain information related to the company’s marketing strategies and business operations, neutralizing its claim that the defendants made off with trade secrets when they formed their own company.

While the defendants John Martinson, Dale Roller and Kent Heinle admit to taking certain documents, including customer lists as well as repair and purchase histories, the materials, since returned to CDI, are generally known to professionals in the field and cannot be deemed trade secrets, the opinion says.

Information about customers and pricing may in some industries be treated as trade secrets, but CDI failed to show that any of the documents at issue has economic value by virtue of having been kept secret, the opinion says.

“It appears undisputed that the potential customers for CDI and West River ... are a small collection of easily identifiable, locally operating oil field companies. Information about these companies would be easily obtainable, if not already known, by relevant actors in the local oil field service and equipment industry,” Judge Melloy said.

The appeals court also shot down CDI’s claim that it had expended considerable resources training the defendants, noting that CDI initially hired them to form the North Dakota office because of their expertise in the industry, according to the opinion.

The district court ruled that CDI would likely prevail on statutory breach-of-loyalty claims, as the defendants did usurp customers from their former employer but correctly refused to grant CDI a preliminary injunction, the opinion says.

An injunction is only justified if there is a risk of irreparable harm and the public interest is in the employer’s favor, according to the ruling.

There is little evidence that an injunction would assist CDI in any manner because the company’s former clients have already moved to West River and CDI no longer has a North Dakota office that would benefit from injunctive relief, the opinion says.

The public interest tips the balances in the defendants’ favor because an injunction would further limit the public’s access to needed services, the opinion says.

The district court did not err when it refused to order West River’s customers to return to CDI, the opinion says.

After granting CDI a temporary restraining order in 2007, the district court refused to issue an injunction against West River, triggering CDI's appeal.

Monday, June 01, 2009, 6/01/2009 05:38:00 PM

O'Melveny and Myers' David Almeling Argues for Federalization of Trade Secrets Law

By Todd

A friend of Womble Trade Secrets and fellow trade secrets litigator, David Almeling of the O'Melveny & Meyers firm in San Francisco, has written an interesting article that will be published in the upcoming issue of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal titled "Four Reasons to Enact a Federal Trade Secrets Act." We think Mr. Almeling makes some persuasive arguments in this article.

Here is an abstract: “Trade secrets stand alone as the only major type of intellectual property governed primarily by state law. Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are all governed primarily by federal statutes. Trade secrets, in contrast, are governed by fifty state statutes and common laws. The result is that trade secret law differs from state to state. David S. Almeling, an attorney at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, argues in “Four Reasons to Enact a Federal Trade Secrets Act” that it is time to eliminate these differences—and the significant problems they cause—by enacting a Federal Trade Secrets Act. In particular, Almeling argues that enacting a FTSA achieves four aims: (1) solving the interstate conflicts caused by having fifty different trade secret laws; (2) making the acquisition and protection of intellectual property more efficient; (3) assisting small businesses, which rely disproportionately on trade secrets to protect their intellectual property; and (4) unifying intellectual property law at the federal level.”

We have received permission from Mr. Almeling to create a link to the article and will do so once it is published by Fordham.
back to top