Worried About Data Theft While Traveling Abroad? Here's A Few Tips
Miami trade attorney Eric Ostroff spoke with Corporate Counsel about safeguarding proprietary information when employees venture into foreign countries on business and what companies can do after a breach.
October 26, 2018 at 01:00 AM
4 minute read
With the U.S.-China trade rivalries heightening awareness about protecting intellectual property, trade lawyers are increasingly being called on to help concerned clients keep their proprietary data under wraps.
One such lawyer is Eric Ostroff, an administrative partner at Meland Russin & Budwick in Miami who advises stateside companies about what they can do to prevent trade secret theft while also preparing for a worst-case scenario.
Ostroff spoke with Corporate Counsel about safeguarding data when employees travel on business and what companies can do after a breach. The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
Corporate Counsel: Has trade secret theft become more of a concern now in the current trade climate?
Eric Ostroff: There's no question that right now this is an extremely serious problem. The DOJ [U.S. Department of Justice] is very focused on this and the threat is real. This is not something that companies should assume will never happen to them. And it doesn't always just happen to the Fortune 500 companies. You can be a small player in an industry that China's very interested in and you can easily still get targeted.
So how do you help a U.S. company protect its trade secrets from an international competitor?
The times when I'm helping a company deal with foreign competitors is if, for example, someone's traveling abroad. What are some of the precautions a company can take if an employee is traveling to particular areas or if you're in the particular industries that are high risk?
OK. Let's talk about those precautions.
It starts by understanding if your industry is likely to be targeted for trade secrets theft, particularly state-sponsored trade secrets theft. There are certain industries such as defense, biotech, a lot of the emerging technologies, high-end manufacturing, agriculture, that are particularly susceptible. If you're in one of those industries, it's worth giving some long thought about how you can protect the information when you're sending someone to a country like China, when we know there's a governmental effort to support theft of trade secrets from American companies.
In that situation, you want to make sure that you don't take your normal business computer abroad. Give the employee a totally brand new computer or a computer that has no proprietary information on it. And once you're abroad, don't use that computer to connect to the company's system. When you come back, that computer should never be connected to the company system unless it's given to IT first to make sure there's no malicious software that's been installed on there.
What are some other travel-related safety measures that you recommend to clients?
When someone's traveling abroad they need to be trained to be aware of seemingly innocent but what could be malicious attempts to gain information. There's something called elicitation, it's like a human version of spearphishing. Let's say you're going to an industry conference and someone will meet up with you and use efforts to try to innocently, supposedly, obtain information from you. You have to be aware at all times of anyone trying to get information.
All these issues are one's that our government is focused on. If you're in an industry that is a target for this kind of theft, I'd recommend that the company speak with its local FBI office, which will have a special agent that's dedicated to addressing this kind of theft.
Companies also turn to you after their trade secrets have been stolen. What do you do to help in that situation?
If it's a completely offshore company, it can be difficult to obtain any kind of relief here. But whenever this happens time is of the essence. And, hopefully, you've already been working with a lawyer who knows your industry. At the end of the day, a critical step is going to be trying to get an injunction to prohibit a defendant from using this information and the plaintiff's lawyer is going to have to convince the judge why this information is so important to the plaintiff's company.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250