Supreme Court Narrows Scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act | Orrick - Trade Secrets Group jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The state Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court s
determination, concluding that the no-hire provision at issue is unreasonably in restraint of trade and therefore
unenforceable.
In its April 29, 2021, opinion,
Pittsburgh Logistics
Systems v. Beemac Trucking,?A.3d?, No. 31 WAP 2019, 2021 WL
1676399 (Pa. Apr. 29, 2021), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
weighed in on whether no-hire, or no-poach, provisions
that are ancillary to a services contract between business entities
are enforceable under Pennsylvania law. The court declined to hold
such provisions
per se unenforceable. Its
answer for the clause at issue, however, was a resounding
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The trial of Xiaorang You (aka “Shannon You”) the principal research engineer accused of stealing trade secrets from several companies, including Coca-Cola began on April 6, 2021 in the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville. Ms. You was indicted by a grand jury on February 12, 2019 for theft of trade secrets, conspiracy to commit theft of trade secrets, and wire fraud. The trade secrets were valued at more than $119 million. In August 2020, a superseding indictment added additional charges related to economic espionage.
While Coca-Cola’s vaulted secret formula remains intact, Ms. You is accused of stealing trade secrets related to bisphenol-A-free (“BPA-free”) coating, which is used to prevent beer and soda cans from corroding or reacting with the food or beverage inside them, minimize flavor loss, and prevent threats to human health.
Last year, the California Supreme Court held in
Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., that restraints in contracts between businesses should be evaluated using the same “rule of reason” standard that courts use to analyze antitrust violations under the Cartwright Act. Our previous article analyzing the
Ixchel decision can be found here.
Recently, in
Ixchel to overturn a decision of the San Diego Superior Court (the “Superior Court”).
Procedural History
The case arises from a dispute over an exclusivity provision contained in a business agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into between two biotechnology companies, Quidel Corporation (“Quidel”) and Beckman Coulter, Inc. (“Beckman”).[1] Under the terms of the Agreement, Beckman became the exclusive developer of a B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) assay for Quidel. Quidel would use these assays in a specially designed analyzer to help diagnose congestive heart failure. Section 5.2.3 of the Agreement prohibite
A preliminary injunction motion recently filed in the Eastern District of Virginia paints a fascinating story of alleged trade secret theft by a direct competitor in the.