Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Can a Workforce IP Training Program Limit Liability Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act?
When a lower-level employee uses a former employer's trade secrets after taking a new job, the plaintiff often sues the new employer itself and demands exemplary damages under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act ('UTSA') ' even if the new employer was unaware of, and disapproves of, the employee's conduct. Taking a page from the law of employment discrimination, we believe that companies that provide intellectual property training for their workforce can use the fact of such training during litigation to avoid exemplary damages for the solitary wrongdoing of non-executive-level employees ' and perhaps avoid vicarious liability altogether. Companies, especially technology startups, can reduce trade secret litigation and liability risks by implementing such programs ' programs which today are very rare, even in Silicon Valley.
Trade secret lawsuits sometimes target founders and other high-level executives, and in those cases issues of vicarious liability and responsibility for treble damages are less controversial. But other lawsuits arise because a salesperson uses secret customer information from a former employer to make a sale, or a junior engineer uses secret code from a prior job as part of a software project. Management is often totally unaware of such acts and requires each new hire to sign an employment agreement containing a covenant not to use a former employer's trade secrets.
When the plaintiff nonetheless sues the employer (sometimes without even suing the employee individually) and demands treble damages under the UTSA, the question arises whether an employer is liable in the first place for the solitary acts of the rank and file, much less for exemplary damages based on 'willful and malicious' conduct. As we will conclude below, the law is not clear, but implementing an IP training program could very likely work to bar exemplary damages and perhaps limit vicarious liability as well.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?