Posts Tagged: "Trade Secrets"

Earlier today Alphabet subsidiary Waymo settled with Uber in the midst of a trade secret infringement trial. This lawsuit originated when Waymo brought suit against Uber in 2017, alleging that a former Waymo engineer Anthony Levandowski, who was hired by Uber to lead Uber’s self-driving car project, took with him thousands of confidential documents… The U.S. Department of Justice is conducting a separate, criminal investigation into the alleged theft of trade secrets. Levandowski has claimed a Fifth Amendment privilege and has not spoken about the events leading to this dispute.

Today, as social media becomes more essential for businesses, there will almost certainly be an increase in intellectual property disputes about social media account ownership. Lawsuits relating to Twitter followers, LinkedIn connections, or Facebook friends are not off limits. These intangible assets — social media IP assets — are becoming increasingly more valuable to businesses… According to Ball, companies should be clear about who owns a social media account and what an employee can do with the account… Sarfati says that employers also need to recognize that social media is not just one thing – but rather a grouping of various websites that represent unique threats and opportunities to the employer’s bottom line.

When the auctioneer’s hammer went down, the violin sold for almost $16 million. It was one of the masterpieces of Cremona, the small northern Italian town that was the 18th-century center of violin-making. Some critics of trade secret law have cited Cremona as an example of progress “lost” because it was buried instead of published through a patent application. There are several reasons why that argument fails, but for today let’s consider the possibility that the violin makers couldn’t have passed on their “secrets” if they wanted to, simply because they didn’t know what made their violins sound so good.

IP-protected innovation is now the principal driver of corporate value and is driving economic growth nationally. Developing an IP portfolio is now a basic requirement even for tech startups that hope to raise early stage financing… A large portion of the market cap of Silicon Valley companies can be directly attributed to intangible – or in other words intellectual property – assets. IP law is the primary tool used to protect the value of that innovation, and as we see from countries without meaningful IP laws there is simply no way to protect innovation absent a strong intellectual property system.

A Confidentiality Agreement, which is also known as non-disclosure agreement or simply as an NDA, is simply a contract between two or more parties where the subject of the agreement is a promise that information conveyed will be maintained in secrecy… These types of agreements are particularly useful when one is disclosing information that is valuable so long as secrecy is maintained (i.e., a trade secret), which can include both invention related information and business related information.

Failure is success if we learn. So why shouldn’t failure qualify as a trade secret? Competitors would love to avoid making the effort and taking the risk… Negative information is most commonly put at risk not by theft of the records of R&D, but by departing employees who are familiar with how a particular technical solution was created or optimized. Eager to help their new colleagues, a recent arrival may wince at a suggested development path and blurt out a warning not to go there. Even very general pointers about an engineering direction to try or to avoid can help a competitor reduce risk and shorten development time. That is why hiring someone who has worked on a similar project for a competitor can lead to trouble.

Recently a client asked me for advice on setting up a “reverse engineering” project. He no longer had access to any trade secrets of his former employer; what could possibly go wrong?… In most circumstances, there is nothing wrong with reverse engineering. The recently-enacted Defend Trade Secrets Act declares that it cannot be an “improper means” of acquiring information. (In fact, if you properly reverse engineer a product, the information you discover can be held by you as your own trade secret.) The reason behind the rule is apparent when you consider the limits of trade secret protection: selling a product that reveals the design and method of its manufacture means the secret is imperiled. If it is very easy to discern, then the secret is lost immediately. If it might take some time to figure out, then that’s called reverse engineering, and anyone is allowed to do it.

Among the most disastrous mistakes with trade secrets is believing you own them when you do not.  A number of highly-contentious trade secrets disputes have arisen when joint ventures and similar business partnerships were dissolved.  Even companies with forward-thinking legal departments who carefully document such deals may find that they inherit new issues with acquisitions of companies where the prior legal department wasn’t as careful or complete.  Compounding these issues is the fact that documentation varies globally – and over time.  Even in a well-documented deal, upon dissolution of the relationship, it can turn out that the ownership of trade secrets the company thought belonged to it is unclear, or is joint.  In a poorly-documented deal, it may be unclear who owns contributed or even jointly-developed trade secrets – or it may never have been considered in the first place. Even where the documentation is clear, the facts may not be, because over time the history of “contributions” can be lost or muddied by time, additional facts, or complexity.

Patenting and secrecy are the two major methods of protecting technology that supports competitive advantage. Trade secrets protect a wide range of confidential information, ranging from customer lists to strategic plans and business methods.  While this has been true for decades, the legal landscape in which businesses must choose between them has changed dramatically in recent years, mainly as a result of two forces. The first of these was a series of court rulings that collectively have narrowed the scope of patentable subject matter and have made patents more difficult to enforce. The second was the America Invents Act of 2011 (the “AIA”), which effectively eliminated or reduced certain risks of choosing secrecy, while providing new ways to challenge patents in administrative proceedings.  Considered together, these forces require innovators to reconsider their cost/benefit models for evaluating protection mechanisms. This paper discusses risk factors counsel should weigh when advising clients on these issues. I do not advocate one method over the other, but instead suggest that decisions should be guided by clients’ business needs and priorities rather than by patent eligibility alone.

Every trade secret case is built around a story. Sure, the plaintiff’s story is different than the defendant’s, even though each draws on the same facts. For the rest of us that don’t have a dog in the fight, helpful lessons are available. But sometimes you have to look hard to find them. Here’s one. When Waymo, the Google self-driving car company, filed its lawsuit against Uber earlier this year, the story was remarkable enough… This case is instructive for any business considering hiring an executive from a competitor: be aware that the cost of this recruitment might include the legal fees, disruption and liability risk of a trade secret claim.

Does your CEO, CFO, CTO and General Counsel have the most relevant information regarding the innovation in process to make informed choices about what to pursue? Do your scientists and engineers know enough about what can be protected as proprietary to identify when they have created something of value? Do your middle managers understand enough about the science, engineering and law to ensure they don’t weed out the next billion-dollar idea as something not worth pursuing? Does your corporation have policies in place to determine the best path to proprietary protection once an innovation of consequence has been realized? Join me for a free webinar on Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 12pm ET to discuss these critical questions and decision-points on the path from idea to intangible asset to tangible profit.

Join me for a free webinar on Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 12pm ET to critical questions and decision-points on the path from idea to intangible asset to tangible profit.

On November 6th, the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU) will host the Intellectual Property Awareness Summit (IPAS) at the Chicago-Kent College of Law (CKCL). The conference is the first of its kind which seeks to bring together IP thought leaders from various sectors including business, academia, government and other organizations to address a lack of IP understanding among certain audiences in the realms of copyright, trade secrets, trademarks and patents.

Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC (“Uber”), appealed the district court’s order, denying Uber’s motion to compel arbitration of pending litigation with Waymo, LLC (“Waymo”). Levandowski, a former employee of Waymo, was an Intervenor in this case. Uber sought to compel arbitration on the basis of Waymo’s arbitration agreement with Levandowski, not because of any arbitration agreement with Waymo.

“The most important change was that DTSA allowed someone claiming their trade secret was being used improperly to go into a federal court,” explained Jacoby. “In most situations, the employer and the employee in a trade secret dispute are likely to be in the same state. Usually, two citizens of the same state can’t bring a lawsuit into a federal court unless an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the case exists. So, if my client wants to sue the business next door to his yoga school for blasting out heavy metal during his meditation classes, I literally can’t make a federal case out of it.” However, DTSA changed that rule for trade secret protection — that claim now can be brought into a federal court even if the parties are both from the same state. Up until DTSA, that only happened if you had some other jurisdictional basis to be in federal court, such as the parties were from different states and met the jurisdictional amount for a diversity claim, or perhaps if you sued under another federal statute relating to IP.