- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Childhood Sexual Abuse Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Restructuring and Business Bankruptcy
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
- Litigation Support Services
-
December 4, 2019State of Minnesota Sues JUUL
-
November 26, 2019Minnesota Lawyer Honors Two Robins Kaplan Attorneys as 2019 Attorneys of the Year
-
November 21, 2019Firm, Attorney Stacey Slaughter Recognized by National Law Journal
-
December 12, 2019Collective Liberty Holiday Party
-
December 13, 2019LGBTQ Legal Services: Transgender Name Change Clinic
-
December 13, 2019Bridgeport 2019 Wage & Hour Litigation & Management Conference
-
November 2019CLASS ACTION: Experts weigh in on significant class action developments
-
November 15, 20192019 Case Developments: Are Massachusetts Insurers Required To Be Perfect In An Imperfect World?
-
November 15, 2019Artificial Intelligence v. General Data Protection Regulation: Complex Risks in Changing Times
Inevitable Disclosure and the DTSA
April 2017
An employee leaving for a competitor may raise a concern of what trade secrets and confidential business information may go with the employee, and into the competitor’s hands. Some states’ trade secret laws modelled on the Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA) potentially allow an employer to stop a departing employee from working for a competitor on the theory that the employee would “inevitably” use the former employer’s trade secrets while working for the competitor. In its broadest form, the inevitable disclosure doctrine empowers a court to prevent a departing employee who knows a trade secret from working, even in the absence of evidence that the trade secret was actually communicated or disclosed to the employee’s new employer, and even though the employee never agreed to a non-competition agreement. In states where the doctrine is available, it is commonly applied at the beginning of a case when a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction may be sought. Although potent if applicable, the inevitable disclosure doctrine has not been adopted in all states, and even where it is applied, it is applied inconsistently between states.
Originally published in Intellectual Property Magazine, April 2017
The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.
Related Professionals
David A. Prange
Partner
Ari B. Lukoff
Associate
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.