Trade Secret Law Evolution Podcast: Recent Episodes
Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig’s Trade Secret Law Evolution Podcast strives to offer business leaders, in-house counsel, and entrepreneurs an easily digestible and quick analysis of the most current developments in trade secret law. In episodes short enough for a morning commute, host Greenberg Traurig Shareholder Jordan Grotzinger summarizes key cases and trends, providing takeaways on trade secret protection. Each episode will address recent developments occurring since the previous episode, to help you stay current on trade secret law and trends as you work to protect your company’s most valuable assets.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, GT Boston Shareholder Greg Bombard joins Jordan to discuss a Federal Circuit case addressing measuring trade secret damages, and a Fifth Circuit case allowing misappropriation to serve as a RICO predicate at the pleading stage.
In this episode of TSLE Industry Voices, a subseries of the Trade Secret Law Evolution Podcast, Jordan welcomes Richard Davies, General Counsel & Chief Administrative Officer of RoC Skincare, a private equity-backed global skincare company. Richard leads legal, regulatory, compliance, HR and administration at RoC and sits on the executive leadership team, with a focus on building the legal and operational infrastructure the business needs to scale: the right frameworks, processes and controls to support high growth without slowing the business down. He writes about these themes in his monthly Substack series, Built to Scale, aimed at legal and operational leaders at PE-backed companies.
In this episode of TSLE Industry Voices, a subseries of the Trade Secret Law Evolution Podcast, Jordan Grotzinger welcomes David Gould, CEO of FarmTogether. David is helping transform how investors access farmland by bringing a traditionally hard-to-reach asset class into a modern, tech-enabled investment platform. With over 30 years of Wall Street experience spanning portfolio management, emerging markets debt, and capital markets, David has held senior roles at firms including Cargill, Elliott Associates, Jefferies, Banco Pine, and AMERRA Capital Management, where he led capital markets, investor relations, and ESG initiatives. His global perspective now informs his mission to connect institutional capital with real-world impact as farmland emerges as one of the most compelling alternative assets of our time.
In this episode, Jordan breaks down a major statute of limitations ruling from the Federal Circuit, which erased a massive verdict, and a Sixth Circuit decision clarifying the plaintiff's burden of proof when seeking a preliminary injunction.
In this episode, we launch TSLE Industry Voices, a new subseries of the Trade Secret Law Evolution Podcast featuring founders, business leaders, and in-house counsel discussing trade secret-related issues from the company perspective — how businesses think about proprietary information, competitive advantage, innovation, and risk in the real world. Our inaugural guest is Joe Perez, an entrepreneur and digital media executive best known as a co-founder of Tastemade, the global lifestyle media company focused on food, travel, and home and design content. Before Tastemade, Perez was the co-founder of LIVESTRONG.COM and Demand Media and was COO and CMO of Autograph. He has built a long career in internet media, gaming, and digital health. He has also been active in startup mentoring and advisory work, including with the USC Center for Body Computing and accelerator communities such as techstars and Mucker Capital. Today, Perez is building Proactive SPX, another company he co-founded, focused on science-backed training and performance programs designed for elite athletes.
In this episode, Jordan breaks down a recent First Circuit case that addressed the issue of who owns a trade secret and therefore has standing to sue for misappropriation.
In this episode, Jordan discusses two District Court cases that address the issue of trade secret identification at different stages of litigation.
In this episode, Jordan breaks down a Fifth Circuit ruling that requires apportionment of damages in multi-secret cases, and the Seventh Circuit's strict approach to trade secret identification at the summary judgment stage.
This episode is our annual year in review. Jordan and Boston Shareholder Gregory Bombard break down last year's key cases and takeaways.
In this episode, co-host Gregory Bombard joins Jordan to discuss a fascinating case from the Eleventh Circuit, originating from a sunken 16th century French warship and a dispute over artifact excavation 450 years later.
In this episode, Jordan discusses two recent Circuit opinions, one about statute of limitations and how rumors and suspicion can trigger the clock, and the other about deference to juries' damages awards in trade secret cases.
In this episode, Jordan has a wide-ranging conversation with Meta's Head of Patents and Trade Secrets, Micheal Binns.
In this episode, New Jersey Shareholder Galit Kierkut joins Jordan to discuss the latest developments and trends following the FTC's 2024 noncompete ban and resulting litigation.
In this episode, the podcast’s 80th, Jordan discusses two cases from Federal Districts in Texas and New York that address the statute of limitations, limited authorization to use trade secrets, and the reasonable measures to maintain secrecy requirement.
In this episode, Jordan Grotzinger and Gregory Bombard discuss the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision impacting the most litigated issue in trade secret cases – trade secret identification.
In this episode, Jordan discusses a recent case from the Southern District of New York where an injunction was partially granted on a breach of contract claim but not on the trade secret claim. The Court found the plaintiffs didn’t make a sufficient showing on irreparable harm, based on a lack of “danger” that the misappropriator would disclose the trade secrets to someone else.
In this episode, Jordan breaks down a recent ruling from the Northern District of New York that addresses what to do and not to do to establish the elements of irreparable harm and likelihood of success for a motion to enjoin trade secret misappropriation.
In this episode, Jordan discusses a recent Fifth Circuit case that addressed trade secret identification and proof of misappropriation at trial, and an Eleventh Circuit case addressing whether and how trade secret misappropriation damages can be limited by contract.
In this episode, Jordan discusses a Second Circuit Court of Appeals opinion on statute of limitations, and a Central District of California decision on trade secret identification, and specifically the importance of distinguishing alleged trade secret information from public information included in patents.
This month, Jordan discusses how courts apply the first-to-file rule after a "race to the courthouse" and addresses cases involving the doctrine of res judicata and statute of limitations.
In this episode, Boston Shareholder Greg Bombard joins us for the annual year in review.
In this episode, GT attorney Emily Livermore joins Jordan to begin the conversation on how AI affects trade secrets and trade secret law. They address trade secret ownership, reverse-engineering, and how to protect trade secrets in the age of this revolutionary and rapidly-developing technology.
In this episode, Jordan discusses a case in which a "destroy and certify" clause in an NDA triggered a statute of limitations, and another case that addresses how the possibility of irreparable harm may not be enough for preliminary injunctive relief.
In this episode, co-host Gregory Bombard, a Shareholder in Greenberg Traurig's Boston office, returns to discuss a federal Court of Appeals decision addressing Massachusetts' and California's competing public policies on the enforcement of noncompete agreements.
In this episode, Jordan discusses two cases and three issues: (1) whether proof of causation and damages is necessary to be the prevailing party in trade secret cases, (2) whether “actual loss” for damages purposes includes expert costs, and (3) trade secret identification.
In this episode, repeat co-host Justin Victor joins Jordan and breaks down the latest developments in the FTC noncompete ban saga, including the nationwide injunction against the ban in the leading case, related litigation, what to expect and what to do.
In this episode, Jordan discusses a Seventh Circuit decision in a case of first impression over whether the DTSA applies outside the United States.
In this episode, Bridget Smith, Assistant General Counsel and Director, Intellectual Property for Relativity Space joins the podcast to discuss her company, how her job involves trade secrets, her views on measures to protect trade secrets given her company’s unique assets, and other subjects.
In this episode, Jennifer Burdman, Chief IP Officer & Deputy General Counsel for Valo Health, joins Jordan for a robust discussion on the hot topic of trade secret inventory, including its pros and cons.
In this episode, Jordan and recurring co-hosts Gregory Bombard and Justin Victor discuss the FTC’s new sweeping ban on non-compete agreements, and what it means for companies.
In this episode, Jordan discusses how to plead (and not to plead) subject matter jurisdiction under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, the requirement of trade secret ownership, and whether injunctive relief is presumed once the plaintiff proves misappropriation.
In this episode, Jordan discusses how Missouri treats the hot topic of non-compete agreements, and a recent District Court case in California on preemption.
Jordan and GT Boston Shareholder Greg Bombard break down 2023’s trends and key cases in trade secret law.
In this episode, Jordan discusses Minnesota’s and Texas's differing approaches to the doctrine of preemption as explained in two recent cases.
This week, Jordan and co-host Gregory Bombard interview United States District Judge William G. Young, one of the most distinguished jurists on the federal bench. He sat down with us for an enlightening discussion on issues he’s addressed in trade secret cases, including trade secret identification, how to protect trade secrets in court proceedings, and his views on arbitration versus trial. He even shares a little poetry.
Jordan Grotzinger and guest Michael Stimson, Vice President of Intellectual Property and General Counsel for Sun World International, LLC, discuss Michael's involvement in the DuPont Pioneer/Monsanto criminal case, which started when a contract farmer discovered someone digging on his property who then fled.
In this episode, Jordan and GT Shareholder, trade secret lawyer and returning co-host Greg Bombard discuss the 2023 Global IP Strategy Hub’s Trade Secret IP Protection & Litigation: Boston conference, including key takeaways.
In this episode, Jordan and GT Dallas Shareholder Bill Stark discuss “DTOs” (device turnover orders), how to get them and their impact on trade secret litigation.
In this episode, Jordan discusses a recent Second Circuit opinion that addressed how to sufficiently identify trade secrets at trial and analyzed when avoided cost unjust enrichment damages are appropriate.
In this episode, GT litigator Jonathan Widjaja joins Jordan for a deep dive into how courts reconcile general agency principles with statutory requirements for indirect misappropriation, that is, liability for misappropriation based on the conduct of another. Jon also shares an interesting “fun fact.”
In this episode, Los Angeles Shareholder Blakeley Oranburg and Jordan discuss an Eight Circuit case that addresses pleading trade secret misappropriation claims on “information and belief,” and case out of the Southern District of Ohio that explains the time period in which damages for trade secret misappropriation are recoverable.
In this episode, Boston shareholder Greg Bombard returns to discuss GT’s 2022 trade secret Year in Review, and some highlights from last year’s cases.
In this episode, Jordan and fellow IP litigator Layal Bishara discuss the Sixth Circuit’s deep dive into identification of combination trade secrets, proper measures of damages, and what it means to willfully misappropriate.
In this episode, Bina Palnitkar and Jordan Grotzinger discuss the Northern District of Illinois’ deep dive into what it takes to properly plead misappropriation and inevitable disclosure, and address the preemption doctrine. They’re also joined by GT’s very own Brian Duffy, the firm’s CEO, who invented the “interesting fact” segment of the podcast and shares his own interesting fact.
In this episode, Bina Palnitkar and Jordan Grotzinger discuss the Northern District of Illinois’ deep dive into what it takes to properly plead misappropriation and inevitable disclosure, and address the preemption doctrine. They’re also joined by GT’s very own Brian Duffy, the firm’s CEO, who invented the “interesting fact” segment of the podcast and shares his own interesting fact.
In this episode, Jordan and Boston Shareholder Greg Bombard discuss the Seventh Circuit’s recent opinion in a case involving hydraulic actuator technology. The Court of Appeal addressed the critical issue of trade secret identification and analyzed whether the proof of misappropriation in this case was sufficient to survive summary judgment.
In this episode, Jordan and Boston Shareholder Greg Bombard discuss the Seventh Circuit’s recent opinion in a case involving hydraulic actuator technology. The Court of Appeal addressed the critical issue of trade secret identification and analyzed whether the proof of misappropriation in this case was sufficient to survive summary judgment.
In this episode, Dallas Shareholder Bina Palnitkar joins Jordan to discuss the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision affirming a judgment in a trade secret case, which analyzes issues of causation, exemplary damages and attorney fee awards under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
In this episode, shareholder Jennifer Surprenant joins Jordan for a discussion of cases addressing the difference between lawfully notifying others about a new job for a competing business and unlawful solicitation of potential customers or clients. We also address the specificity required for injunctions against trade secret misappropriation, and courts’ differing standards on this issue.
In this episode, we discuss how one state’s Public Records Act is reconciled with trade secret protections. We also address trade secret identification at pleadings, and a recent decision interpreting the supersession doctrine.
In this episode, Jordan’s partner Rich McCrea discusses a unique trade secret case from inception to verdict, including methodically developing proof, picking the right jury and trial themes.
In this episode, we discuss a grant of summary judgment against a trade secret misappropriation claim, and some important lessons on proving misappropriation and damages.
We’re back for our fourth year and discuss proper venue for prosecution of criminal trade secret theft of fishing coordinates, and what kinds of costs must be deducted to calculate lost profit damages in trade secret misappropriation cases.
Jordan Grotzinger and Charles Feigelstock break down the highlights of 2021 in TSLE’s third Year in Review.
In this episode, we address the doctrine of “preemption,” or supersession, under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and specifically how a “shotgun” pleading of related claims can result in preemption. We also discuss a court decision explaining the showing needed to have trade secret information in court papers filed under seal.
In this episode, we discuss the Sixth Circuit’s recent analysis of the statute of limitations for trade secret misappropriation claims, including the concept of continuing misappropriation.
In this episode, we examine how a plaintiff proved the existence of a “compilation” trade secret in a trial resulting in an eight-figure verdict, and the issue of how a preliminary injunction in a trade secret case affects the plaintiff’s claims for damages.
In this episode, we discuss President Biden’s July 9, 2021 Executive Order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” and what it means for trade secret protection. We also unpack the definition of “use” of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act.
In the month that marks our two year anniversary, we welcome back guest Todd Pickles, and discuss a recent Supreme Court opinion that clarifies the reach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the opinion's impact on trade secret cases. We also continue our discussion of the China Initiative and its progress in the Biden Administration.
In this episode, we discuss an informative analysis in the Southern District of New York of so-called “avoided costs” as damages for trade secret misappropriation, and the bi-partisan Protecting Intellectual Property Act of 2021 which, according to a sponsor, “draws a line in the sand” when it comes to foreign actors stealing trade secrets from American companies.
In this episode, we discuss how sabotage can constitute misappropriation of trade secrets, and the challenges of obtaining summary judgment in trade secret cases.
In this episode, Jordan Grotzinger and co-host Justin Victor discuss two recent Delaware cases that address what law and venue to choose for trade secret litigation, courts’ differing policies on enforcing such agreements, and preemption by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
In this episode, we discuss the logistics of forensic investigations, a key process in trade secret cases, with expert Jim Vaughn of iDiscovery Solutions.
In this episode, we welcome you to Season 3 of the podcast, and discuss preemption under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the increasingly important issue of compilations as a trade secret, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision on an issue of first impression – whether pre-enactment disclosures are actionable under the Defend Trade Secrets Act.
This episode is our second annual year-in-review discussion. We address handling trade secrets while working remotely, surviving summary judgment and more. We’ll be back in January, and wish everyone safe, healthy and happy holidays.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss a recent Ninth Circuit case that addressed the level of trade secret identification necessary to survive summary judgment. We also discuss factors relevant to whether customer data are trade secrets.
In this episode, we address for the first time the criminal enforcement of trade secret protection, including related geopolitical issues, trends and the overlap with civil cases.
In this episode, we discuss agency liability in the trade secret misappropriation context, the doctrine of indirect misappropriation, and intrinsic knowledge as a trade secret.
In this episode, we discuss the showing that’s required to obtain attorneys’ fees in a trade secret case, what you must establish to file documents under seal, and challenges in obtaining temporary restraining orders.
In this episode, we discuss how and when trade secret law applies to conduct abroad, and tips on how to prove your confidential material constitutes a trade secret.
In this episode, we discuss the effect of a trade secret subsumed within a parent, the viability of claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act for misappropriation before its enactment, and the application of the economic loss rule to trade secret cases.
In this episode, we address a decision out of the Northern District of Illinois that examines the “do’s and don’t’s” of trade secret identification at the summary judgment stage, and we celebrate our one year anniversary.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss the 11th Circuit’s deep dive into “improper means” and the misappropriation of compilations that include public information.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
Ashley Farrell Picket rejoins us remotely to discuss the important of trade secret ownership for Defend Trade Secret Act cases, and how to plead misappropriation and inevitable disclosure where that theory applies.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss a recent District Court interpretation of subject matter jurisdiction under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, pleading misappropriation without establishing that all stolen information constitutes a trade secret, and how to plead “indirect” misappropriation.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we forge on remotely. We address how the COVID-19 crisis affects trade secret protection, and a case from the Northern District of California ruling on “high level” trade secret identification and what constitutes acquisition by improper means.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we revisit the coffee extract case and address the Court’s analysis of the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. We also discuss a bill that would provide trade secret protection for cannabis companies in Maine.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In Episode 18, we discuss how explaining what your trade secret does can bolster your trade secret identification, along with reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy and how they help to establish “improper means” for purposes of misappropriation.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss how to (or how not to) define trade secrets in an injunction proceeding, the Inevitable Disclosure doctrine, and preemption under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, including whether it can apply when the plaintiff has not asserted a trade secret claim.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we announce our California CLE eligibility, and discuss cases that address how tangible a trade secret must be, how fast to cut off terminated employees’ access to confidential information and other issues.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
We’re back for Season 2. In Episode 15, we discuss factors bearing on whether information is sufficiently ‘unknown’ to constitute a trade secret and examine the meaning of misappropriation. We also address the doctrine of trade secret ‘preemption.’
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we recap useful decisions and takeaways from throughout the year.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss what constitutes a trade secret and how it can be a combination of public and proprietary elements. We also address the value of circumstantial evidence in these cases.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss two more cases that develop the key issue of trade secret identification, and a case addressing whether after-the-fact conduct can constitute reasonable measures to maintain secrecy.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we welcome employment counseling attorney Vanessa Krumbein as co-host, and address a major case from the California Court of Appeal on statute of limitations. We also discuss trade secret identification in the context of a high-profile criminal case, and how to protect trade secrets from becoming public in court proceedings.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss how some of the most fundamental issues in trade secret cases—including whether something constitutes a trade secret, whether the owner’s investment in the information at issue was significant enough, and whether secrecy protections were reasonable—can be fact-intensive and affect your litigation strategy.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss the differences between trade secrets and patents and what businesses should consider in choosing which protection to implement.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss preemption of claims based on trade secret theft, how to establish likelihood of success to obtain injunctive relief following an unauthorized mass download of company information, the Defend Trade Secrets Act’s subject matter jurisdiction requirement, and DTSA violations that began before DTSA’s enactment.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss the increasing cost of trade secret litigation and what do to about it, how to establish that your asset is a trade secret and how to keep that status, a damages theory, and the choice between trade secret and patent protection.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss how “trade secret” identification is actually broader than it seems, the effect of consent to disclosure of trade secrets, and the sufficiency of evidence of misappropriation to survive summary judgment.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss choice of law in trade secret cases, trade secret identification and the varying standards applied, reasonable measures to maintain secrecy and supporting the independent economic value element.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss narrow exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, why two courts held that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently show that their information constituted trade secrets, and the ever-recurring issue of trade secret identification. We also welcome co-host, Kevin Cole.
Link to disclosure statement here.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss trade secret identification, irreparable harm, reasonable measures to maintain secrecy and the meaning of independent economic value. Plus, Jena has a big announcement Link to disclosure statement here.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
In this episode, we discuss the latest trade secret cases worth talking about, addressing agency principles, statute of limitations, the inevitable disclosure doctrine, trade secret identification and sovereign immunity.
Link to disclosure statement here.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.
Hosts Greenberg Traurig Shareholder Jordan Grotzinger and Associate Jena MacCabe welcome you to the podcast!
Link to disclosure statement here.
Show notes:
A trade secret is comprised of information that (1) is not generally known, (2) has independent economic value from its secrecy, and (3) is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.
Misappropriation is (1) acquisition a trade secret by improper means, or (2) disclosure or use of the trade secret without the owner’s consent by someone who (i) acquired it by improper means, or (ii) knew that it was acquired by improper means or under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.
Remedies for trade secret misappropriation are (1) actual damages or unjust enrichment, (2) reasonable royalties if actual damages and unjust enrichment are not provable, and (3) injunctive relief. In addition, for willful misappropriation, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs may also be available. Under the DTSA, ex parte seizure is an additional remedy.
This podcast is eligible for CA self-study CLE credit. Certificates of Attendance will not be issued. CA attorneys are responsible for self-reporting the amount of time they listened. For all other jurisdictions, please contact your state’s MCLE Board or Committee for guidance on their rules and regulations as it relates to self-study credit.