In Seyfarth’s final installment of its 2012 Trade Secret Webinar series, Seyfarth attorneys will review noteworthy California cases and other legal developments in the increasingly hot areas of trade secret protection, the preemptive effect of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, California’s hostility to non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, the continued erosion of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as a tool for California employers to curb data theft, and social media’s influence on how organizations identify and protect confidential information. The Seyfarth panel will specifically address the following topics:
The several reasons that trade secret law remains hot in California
The continued influence of trade secret preemption and how it shapes the ways those doing business in California identify and protect their confidential and proprietary information
How California’s prohibition against non-compete agreements continues to gain steam, including potential strategies for protecting proprietary information given the realities of California’s increasingly highly mobile workforce
The continued erosion of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as a tool for California employers to curb data theft, including potential strategies for protecting proprietary information stored on computer systems
How the rise of social media and the National Labor Relation Board’s increased scrutiny of employer social media policies further raises the importance of identifying and protecting trade secrets and highlights the open question of whether California employers properly may restrict by policy and/or contract employees’ disclosure and use of confidential information that does not rise to the level of trade secret
- California’s new social media law, AB 1844, and other California-specific limitations on employers’ abilities to regulate and discipline employees concerning their use of social media
The panel will address, among others, the following 2012 cases: PhoneDog, LLC v. Kravitz; FormFactor, Inc. v. Micro-Probe, Inc.; Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.; Fillpoint, LLC v. Maas; Zynga, Inc. v. Kixeye, Inc.; and United States v. Nosal.
If you have any questions, please contact email@example.com.
*CLE: Seyfarth has applied for CLE credit in IL, NY, and CA. If you would like us to pursue CLE credit in any additional states, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org. Please note that in order to receive full credit for attending this webinar, the registrant must be present for the entire session.