SubscribeAdd blog to your RSS feed
FeedbackWe'd like to hear from you
- Ex-General Counsel Dodged Privilege Claims Before $14.5 Million Verdict (pt 2)
- How Did This Ex-General Counsel Win $14.5 Million From His Former Employer? (pt 1)
- Beware the Deadlock: Delaware Courts Step in on Corporate Dysfunction
- Insider Trading and Related Risks for Executive Branch Employees: Pay Attention to the STOCK Act
- From New York and Delaware Courts, a Double Blow of Bad News for Sergey Aleynikov
- Headed for Overtime? Trump Administration Will Decide Fate of New Time-and-a-Half Rule
- A Closer Look at the New Lawsuit By Baylor Football Coach Art Briles
- Can an Employer Back out of a Promise to Provide Advancement by Claiming That the Employee Committed Fraud?
- Suits by Suits Named to Blawg 100
- “Change of Control” Case Isn’t Governed By ERISA, Court Rules
- "Key Man" Provisions
- After-Acquired Evidence
- Age Discrimination
- Arbitration and ADR
- Breach of Contract
- Campaign Finance
- Change-in-Control Provisions
- Civil Litigation
- Data Security
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Equal Pay
- Executive Compensation
- Family Medical Leave
- Fiduciary Duties
- Fifth Amendment
- First Amendment
- Government Employers and Employees
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Intellectual Property
- Monthly Roundup
- Motions to Dismiss
- Noncompete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Preliminary Injunction
- Religious Discrimination
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act
- Section 1983
- Severance Agreements
- Social Media
- Statutes of limitations
- Summary Judgment
- Termination With or Without Cause
- The Basics
- The Inbox
- The Yates Memo
- Title VII
- Trade Secrets
- Vicarious Liability
- Wage and Hour
- White Collar Crime
- Workplace Conditions (Occupational Safety and Health)
- Wrongful Termination
Blogs We Like:
The AmLaw Daily
The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes
Connecticut Employment Law Blog
The D&O Diary
Delaware Employment Law Blog
DeNovo: A Virginia Appellate Law Blog
The Employer Handbook
Executive Pay Matters
The Federal Criminal Appeals Blog
Grand Jury Target
Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home: What You Need To Know Before You Scream “I Quit,” Get Fired, Or Decide to Sue the Bastards
Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog
Virginia Appellate News & Analysis
WSJ Law Blog
What Employers and Employees Need to Know About the Defend Trade Secrets Act
Owners of stolen trade secrets now have another weapon in their arsenal.
Last month, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (the DTSA), which creates a new cause of action in federal court for the misappropriation of trade secrets. The DTSA does not preempt state laws governing misappropriation of trade secrets, so employers and other trade secret owners may now bring actions under the DTSA and applicable state laws. See 18 U.S.C. § 1838.
Under the DTSA, an “owner” of a “trade secret that is misappropriated” may bring a civil action in federal court, so long as the trade secret is “related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1).
The definition of a trade secret under the DTSA is broad. It includes “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information,” so long as the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep the information secret and the information has independent economic value from not being generally known. 18 U.S.C. § 1839(c). The textbook example of a trade secret is the formula for Coca-Cola, or the Colonel’s secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken.
New Federal Remedies
In an action under the DTSA, a federal court can grant an injunction to prevent any actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret. The injunction can’t “prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship,” and any conditions placed on such employment must be “based on evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on the information the person knows.” Further, the order can’t conflict with state law prohibiting restraints on employees’ work.
A court can also award damages for misappropriation, including damages for “actual loss” and “any unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation,” or a “reasonable royalty” for the unauthorized use of the trade secret. If the misappropriation is willful and malicious, the court can award “exemplary damages” of not more than twice the damages amount. A prevailing employer or trade secret owner can also recover attorney’s fees if the trade secret was willfully misappropriated, or a motion to terminate an injunction is made in bad faith.
But employers and other owners of trade secrets should also take note: the DTSA permits an award of attorney’s fees against an owner if the claim of misappropriation is “made in bad faith, which may be established by circumstantial evidence,” or if a motion for an injunction is made in bad faith. State laws on trade secrets often include a similar protection, which employees or other businesses can invoke when a claim of misappropriation is both “objectively specious” and brought for an “improper purpose.” See Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., 236 Cal. App. 4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2015). For example, in the Cypress case, the plaintiff claimed that the identity of its employees who worked on its touchscreens was a trade secret, even though a list of those employees was available through LinkedIn and publicly-filed patents.
Ex Parte Seizure Orders
The DTSA permits a court to take immediate action, seizing property to prevent the dissemination of trade secrets. A seizure order can be issued ex parte, meaning that the other party doesn’t get an opportunity to respond. An owner seeking an ex parte order must satisfy a stringent test, showing (among other things) that the person against whom seizure is ordered misappropriated the trade secret by improper means, or conspired to use improper means to misappropriate it. 18 U.S.C. 1836(b)(2).
So if you are an employee and your employer thinks you have misappropriated trade secrets, don’t be surprised if law enforcement knocks at your door with a federal court order to seize your computer. But if the seizure is wrongful or excessive, you can bring a damages claim against the owner who applied for the order.
Immunity for Certain Disclosures
The DTSA immunizes individuals for disclosures of trade secrets made “in confidence” to federal, state, or local officials, or to an attorney, for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law, or in legal documents. An individual can also use trade secret information in a lawsuit alleging retaliation by an employer, with the court’s permission. However, these grants of immunity do not apply to disclosures of trade secrets that are not made under seal. Employers have to provide notice of DTSA immunity in any new contracts with employees that govern the use of trade secrets or other confidential information, or else they can’t be awarded exemplary damages or attorney’s fees in an action brought under the new law. 18 U.S.C. § 1833.
Thus, we expect that the Defend Trade Secrets Act will have at least one immediate impact: employers will start adding new language about immunity to their confidentiality agreements with employees.