Our team of labor and employment, commercial, data privacy and IP attorneys understand that trade secrets and proprietary information are more than “IP issues” or “employment matters.” Our experience extends across industries, including entertainment and fashion, financial services, life sciences, manufacturing, medical devices and technology. We know the law, including states’ varied approaches to enforcement of confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicit agreements, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Whether confronted with losing an executive, the “lift out” of a group of employees, or threatened with a lawsuit involving hiring decisions, our clients trust us to mobilize quickly to address their needs. The complexity of non-compete litigation is enhanced as companies face statutes and common laws across multiple states. Our litigators have extensive experience aggressively prosecuting and defending claims in fast-moving, high-stakes situations. We have success obtaining relief for clients who are victims of unfair competition as well as defending against claims involving alleged non-compete violations. Our trial-tested attorneys handle non-compete cases throughout the U.S., often in expedited TRO and preliminary injunction hearings. We also regularly advise on the development of enforceable non-compete agreements, as well as customized onboarding and offboarding products and audit procedures.
Trade secrets provide businesses a powerful advantage and are no longer exclusively located in a vault or on a balance sheet—but in the cloud, on remote hard drives and international servers and often in employees’ heads. Today’s increased employee mobility and groundbreaking technologies have made stealing trade secrets and proprietary information easier. The spike of electronic espionage and cybertheft has left companies increasingly concerned about how to retain employees and protect trade secrets and confidential information. We provide creative solutions companies need to safeguard against trade secret misappropriation, restrictive covenant violations and other claims in order to protect their bottom line and ability to grow business and secure financing.
Managing Intellectual Property | October 01, 2020
This article on what entrepreneurs need to know about IP quotes San Francisco Intellectual Property partner oN Lu extensively on whether startups need IP, strategies they can take to monetize their IP, and when to engage an attorney. The article—resulting from NP’s European Innovation Academy involvement—also includes commentary from NP clients on how IP strategies have benefitted their companies in terms of funding, growth, and other factors.
Intellectual Property Magazine | October 01, 2020
Intellectual Property partner and Life Sciences Practice co-chair Seth Levy and Intellectual Property counsel Peter Wied, both of Los Angeles, contributed this article, based on their alert, which examines the Gensetix Inc v Baylor College of Medicine case and a recent ruling to allow an infringement case to proceed without the state university patent owner’s involvement.
Forbes | June 01, 2020
Los Angeles Intellectual Property partner Erik Birkeneder contributed this article that explores crowdsourced predictions, their accuracy and adoption, and the legal implications of relying on data from crowdsourced predictions.
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin | August 07, 2019
Chicago Complex Commercial Disputes associate Laura Bacon wrote this contributed article analyzing a recent Illinois Appellate Court decision that found that the plaintiff, a wholesale seafood company, could not enforce the overly restrictive post-employment contract it had signed with a former sales associate.
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin | August 07, 2019
Chicago Complex Commercial Disputes associate Laura Bacon authored this article about the Illinois Appellate Courts affirming the dismissal of an employer's suit to enforce post-employment restrictive covenants. This sends a strong message to Illinois employers on the unenforceability of overly broad geographic and activity restrictions.
Law360 | June 18, 2019
This article mentions Providence Labor and Employment partner Neal McNamara for his successful representation of CVS in a suit to enforce a noncompete agreement signed by a former high-level executive who left the company for a similar role with Amazon.
New York Law Journal | May 14, 2019
Long Island Complex Commercial Disputes partners Dan Gibbons and Jim Weller co-wrote this contributed article analyzing the use of restrictive covenants in physician contracts.
Corporate Counsel | October 26, 2018
Washington DC Complex Commercial Disputes partner Alycia Ziarno is quoted in this article on the Department of Justice’s evolving position on no-poach agreements, in which companies agree not to recruit each other’s employees.
Bloomberg BayState Business | September 25, 2018
Labor & Employment partner Jeff Gilbreth and Complex Commercial Disputes partner Matt McLaughlin, both of the Boston office, joined Bloomberg Radio to discuss the new Massachusetts law restricting the use of noncompete clauses by businesses.
The Boston Globe | July 25, 2018
Boston Complex Commercial Disputes partner Matt McLaughlin is quoted in this article for his view on the “garden leave” provision in the Massachusetts Legislature’s proposed bill restricting noncompete clauses.
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense Alert | 06.10.21
Trade Secrets Alert | 06.04.21
Trade Secrets Alert | 01.20.21
Trade Secrets Alert | 05.07.20
Asia-Pacific Alert | 01.21.20
Employment Law Alert | 07.24.19
Non-Compete & Trade Secret Law Alert | 03.05.19
Trade Secrets Alert | 12.06.18
Litigation Alert | 11.15.18
01.28.21 | Virtual Event
07.20.20 | Webinar