ARTICLE
22 December 2022

Recap! Seyfarth Attorneys Marcus Mintz And Alex Meier Present At AIPLA Conference On Trade Secrets

SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
We always enjoy learning about how parties, lawyers, and judges are addressing novel or complex issues relating to trade secret litigation or protection. Some of our major takeaways...
United States Intellectual Property

he American Intellectual Property Law Association recently completed its Trade Secrets Summit in Miami, Florida. The topics for the conference included:

  • A legislative update
  • Best practices for identifying trade secrets in litigation
  • Developments in trade secret trials and changing trends
  • Arbitration of trade secret disputes
  • Recent innovations in trade secret protection technologies and forensics (Alex Meier – panelist)
  • Damages in trade secret cases (Marcus Mintz – panelist)
  • Protecting artificial intelligence generated inventions as trade secrets
  • Criminal and government investigations of trade secret theft
  • What constitutes a trade secret versus confidential information or general skills and knowledge

We always enjoy learning about how parties, lawyers, and judges are addressing novel or complex issues relating to trade secret litigation or protection. Some of our major takeaways from the conference were:

  • Increased interest in damages. Litigants are increasingly seeking monetary damages rather than injunctive relief for misappropriation. This trend is driven in no small part by some of the blockbuster damages awards generated by misappropriation cases over the last decade.
  • Strong preference for court over arbitration. Conference attendees had a near-universal preference for litigating misappropriation cases in court rather than arbitration when asserting a trade secrets misappropriation claim. While arbitration can offer increased confidentiality and more bespoke attention, limitations on discovery and the perceived lower value of injunctive relief generally make arbitration a less desirable venue than court for trade secrets plaintiffs.
  • Don't stick with defaults for retention and monitoring. Many companies follow their default or out-of-the-box settings for network monitoring and exfiltration flags. Companies should consider whether different or longer-duration records should be kept—particularly when the companies have a largely remote workforce.
  • Engage your damages expert early. A skilled, experienced damages expert can help identify a damages theories early and assist in making necessary disclosures under applicable civil procedure rules. An expert will identify necessary discovery inquiries and identify key admissions to obtain in depositions. Testifying experience is critical because damages testimony often comes at the end of testimony and must be concise, clear and persuasive to fact finders.
  • Garden-variety misappropriation very unlikely to garner criminal attention. While misappropriation by a nation-state actor will often generate interest in a potential criminal investigation, the garden-variety case where an employee leaves a company and misappropriates information is unlikely to pique the government's interest.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More