In First Western Capital Management Co. v. Malamed, Case Nos. 16-1434, 16-1465 & 16-1502 (10th Cir. Oct. 30, 2017), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction to a party under federal and state trade secret law where the court presumed that the party would be irreparably harmed absent the injunction.
Ordinarily, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a moving party needs to establish, among other things, that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied. This requires the party to show that there is a ...
A recent decision from the Northern District of California, Magic Leap, Inc. v. Bradski et. al., shows that employers must meet a high standard when filing a California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 disclosure statement under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”). See California Civil Code § 3426 et seq. The disclosure statement, which does not have a counterpart in the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, requires a plaintiff to “identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity” before it can conduct discovery of the defendants’ evidence ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Washington State Seeks to Broaden the Definition of “Noncompetition” and Ban Most Noncompetes
- Preparing for Non-Compete Litigation: 2025 Update
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: Trade Secret Litigation - Lessons from High-Stakes Group Exits
- New York State Proposes Bill That Would Place Restrictions on Noncompetes and Other Restrictive Covenants
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: 2024’s Biggest Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Developments