News/Events/Blogs

One of the most common forms of relief sought in trade secret litigation is an injunction preventing the defendants from using or disclosing the plaintiff’s trade secret information.  Although temporary restraining orders and/or preliminary injunctions may be obtained that are in place during the lawsuit, a permanent injunction is entered after trial and typically has no set time period for expiration.  There are various statutes that allow a defendant to seek to modify or dissolve a trade secret injunction at a later date,

SACRAMENTO, California – July 19, 2018 – Weintraub Tobin Law Corporation congratulates its 24 attorneys who have been included in Sacramento Magazine’s 2018 Top Lawyer List.

David Adams | Business/Corporate, Securities & Corporate Finance
Brendan Begley | Appellate
Gary L. Bradus | Banking & Financial Service, Business/Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Securities & Corporate Finance
Kay U. Brooks | Estate Planning &

SACRAMENTO, California – July 26, 2017 – Weintraub Tobin Law Corporation congratulates its 21 attorneys who have been included in Sacramento Magazine’s 2017 Top Lawyer List.

Brendan Begley | Appellate
Gary L. Bradus | Banking & Financial Service, Business/Corporate
Kay U. Brooks | Estate Planning & Probate
Dale C. Campbell | Business Litigation, Litigation-Commercial, Trade Secrets
Christopher Chediak | Business/Corporate,

As everyone knows, in June, the United Kingdom passed the BREXIT referendum (driven by British voters), voting to exit the European Union.  What affect does BREXIT have on intellectual property rights in the United Kingdom and the European Union?  There is a two-year process of negotiation between the UK and the EU, provided for by law, to determine the specifics of the exit.  Until that process is completed, the UK remains an EU Member State. 

So what is a trade secret?  Generally, a trade secret is information that the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep secret, derives independent economic value from not being generally known, and cannot be readily ascertainable by proper means, such as reverse engineering or independent development.  Many businesses rely on trade secret protection rather than patent protection for confidential information such as product recipes (e.g., the recipe for Coca-Cola), software algorithms (e.g., Google’s search engine),

Senate and House of Representatives Pass the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).  First federal trade secret bill awaiting presidential signature.

More details can be found at the following Forbes article:  “The New Defend Trade Secrets Act is the Biggest IP Development in Years,” dated April 28, 2016.

When companies sue their former employees for theft they often claim that the former employee’s new employer has conspired with the former employee to misappropriate trade secrets, or that that new employer has aided and abetted the former employee’s breach of duty he/she owed to his/her former employer.

Like Woodward and Bernstein, liability “follows the money.”  Current employers are often added to trade secret and breach of duty lawsuits because they have deeper pockets than former employees. 

In business, there are numerous opportunities for pitfalls, mistakes and errors and they come up in all different legal areas – from basic formation issues to labor and employment to intellectual property. Mistakes and missteps involving intellectual property can be particularly problematic because IP is a company asset; it constitutes a part of (often a significant part of) a company’s valuation. In my 20 years working with start-up companies – and even fully grown-up companies,

California’s prohibition on non-competition agreements is less than absolute.  For example, non-compete agreements may be enforced against partners or sellers of businesses.  Additionally, in SingerLewak LLP v. Andrew Gantman (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 610, a California Appellate Court affirmed an arbitration award that would be considered by most to be a misapplication of California’s non-competition law.

The underlying dispute arises from provision within a partnership agreement that imposed a cost on a departing partner (Gantman) who serviced clients of the firm after his departure. 

Companies and employers around the country seek to protect their intellectual property by, among other things, using non-compete provisions in employment agreements. Generally, these provisions are intended to prevent an employee from soliciting or doing business with a former employer’s customer/clients over a set period of time and/or in regard to a set geographical area. Under California law, and specifically Business and Professions Code section 16600, such provisions are unenforceable unless they fall within one of the statutory exceptions,