On March 21, 2024, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) approved a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on its proposal to revise its current Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions. Among the proposed revisions, the agency’s proposal will prohibit non-compete agreements in bank mergers in which the selling bank is required to divest all or a portion of its business lines or branches. The FDIC is one of three federal banking agencies charged with responsibility for evaluating bank transactions subject to Section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, also k ..read more

We invite you to watch our recent webinar, where Seyfarth Shaw LLP’s trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete attorneys navigated the ever-evolving business landscape, safeguarding trade secrets has become a critical priority for organizations seeking resilience and success. In this webinar, our trade secret presenters, Justin Beyer, Joshua Salinas, and Dallin Wilson, delved deeper into the intricacies of building a robust culture of confidentiality through innovative Employee Training Programs. This was not just a webinar; it was a pivotal discussion meticulously tailored to empower HR p ..read more

Seyfarth proudly announced the annual installment of our Commercial Litigation Outlook and Webinar Series, featuring insights about litigation issues and trends to expect in 2024 from our nationally recognized team. The Trade Secrets practice group is pleased to present its 2024 outlook piece, “Guarding Secrets: Navigating the Shifting Landscape of Restrictive Covenants in 2024,” available here, along with a webinar focusing on the content and what to expect this year. We invite you to join us on Thursday, April 11th for the second installment of the Commercial Litigation Outlook series, title ..read more

This blog has been cross-posted to Seyfarth’s Gadgets, Gigabytes & Goodwill site. On March 4, the Federal Circuit, heard oral arguments for Celanese Int’l. v ITC, 22-1827 (Fed. Cir. 2024), a case that may reshape the dynamics between trade secrets and patent rights. The Core Issue at Hand This case centers around the America Invents Act (AIA) and whether a product’s prior sale by the patent applicant can disqualify the patenting of the method used to produce said product. Case Background Celanese perfected a novel method for producing acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), a synthetic sweetener. Op ..read more

Wednesday, March 27, 2024 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Central 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Mountain 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Pacific REGISTER HERE About the Program As we navigate the ever-evolving business landscape, safeguarding trade secrets has become a critical priority for organizations seeking resilience and success. In this pursuit, Seyfarth is thrilled to extend a special invitation to the third installment of our highly acclaimed 2024 Trade Secrets Webinar series. In this webinar, our trade secret presenters, Justin Beyer, Joshua Salinas, and Dallin Wilson, will ..read more

Seyfarth Synopsis: While New York State failed to pass a non-compete ban last year, a new bill in the New York City Council would eliminate non-compete agreements entirely, presenting new challenges and considerations for employers in the Big Apple. On December 12, 2023, the New York State Legislature delivered a bill for the Governor’s signature that would have banned “any agreement, or clause contained in any agreement, between an employer and a covered individual that prohibits or restricts such covered individual from obtaining employment, after the conclusion of employment ..read more

In the ever-evolving digital landscape as well as legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to the use of non-competes, the preservation of trade secrets stands as a cornerstone for businesses striving to secure a competitive edge. As we continue to navigate the complexities of remote work and the jurisdictional differences in restrictive covenant enforcement, the safeguarding of these invaluable assets becomes not only essential but increasingly paramount. In this session, Kate Perrelli, Dan Hart, and Cat Johns unravel the intricate relationship between non-compete agreements an ..read more

It should come as no surprise to readers of our blog that restrictive covenants are facing significant headwinds. The last decade or so has seen significant limitations on such agreements—mainly non-competes, but also other restrictive covenants such as customer and employee non-solicits and even non-disclosure agreements. These limitations—or proposed limitations—have come in a variety of forms; for example, many states have enacted so-called low-wage bans and choice of law and forum restrictions. They’ve also come from several corners: state legislatures (although not all have been successfu ..read more

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) sent shockwaves through the employment landscape when General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo took the position that the “proffer, maintenance, and enforcement” of restrictive covenants could violate Section 7 and Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). As we previously blogged, the NLRB seemingly took the position that non-competes typically violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, which makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with an employee’s Section 7 rights. We also noted that this theory could wreak havoc on ro ..read more

Love is in the air. With Valentine’s Day just around the corner, we’re writing to share some heartfelt news about a recent change in California law that might just make your heart skip a beat. In the spirit of spreading love (and compliance), a new law, Section 16600.1 of the Business and Professions Code, has made it unlawful to include a non-compete clause in an employment contract or to require an employee to enter a non-compete agreement that doesn’t meet specified exceptions. Now, here’s a Valentine’s Day twist: For current and former employees (from January 1, 2022), Cupid (or, in this c ..read more