How Tech Startups Can Tackle Trade Secret Theft Without Lawsuits
Intellectual property or trade secret litigation can be a costly prospect for many tech startups, but lawyers say there's front-end and non-litigation remedies to mediate and prevent the problem.
April 18, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Trade secret and intellectual property lawsuits can be a lengthy and expensive but necessary prospect for any tech company looking to protect its assets. But for tech startups that may not have the budget to sustain litigation if they suspect an ex-employee took company trade secrets, filing those suits likely isn't an option.
However, there are steps startups can take to protect their trade secrets. Such front-end precautions include adding nondisclosures, monitoring personal devices used for work, and defining ownership rights in work agreements. Taking these pre-emptive actions could help startups avoid a costly courtroom battle.
“You can't ultimately prevent someone from doing bad things, but you can put yourself in the best position,” said San Francisco-based DLA Piper partner Margaret Keane. She noted that while trade secret theft has always been an issue, today's technology allows employees to more easily take information from one company to the next.
To combat theft, lawyers suggested tech startups should encourage employees to work on company-owned devices, which enables them to examine and monitor an employee's activity.
“If you, as a company, own your own network, and can monitor it all, you have a much better chance to see if someone is stealing something and you can request and get back those computers,” said David Axtell, a partner focusing on intellectual property at Stinson Leonard Street.
What's more, before someone joins the company, they should ideally sign a work agreement that includes whistleblower protection, a requirement under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, said David R. Barnard, a Stinson Leonard partner.
Without that whistleblower provision, Barnard explained, companies lose a federal cause of action granted under the 2016 law.
Additionally, tech companies should be aware that employee intellectual property agreements must notify employees regarding legal limits on the types of intellectual property rights an employer can demand from employees. This is a statutory requirement in Delaware, Illinois, California, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Utah and Washington state, Barnard noted.
Still, how can a company and their counsel know if an ex-employee has taken off with IP assets? With social media, of course. Barnard said he's seen a trade secret theft dispute start based on a LinkedIn post because it “looked like [the former employees] are doing something that they did at the prior company.”
While such an allegation would need to be substantiated with evidence, “if you suspect this may be happening, keep a close eye on their marketing line,” Barnard said. “If their new hot thing is something your previous employee was working on for you, that may be a good tip.”
However, a selfie taken in the new office won't substantiate a claim of trade secret theft. Instead, evidence usually found during a forensic investigation will likely be key.
After examining work devices the employee used while at the company, filing a suit isn't always a necessary next step for startups. Lawyers said a letter sent to the employee's new company may be enough to stop any possible misuse of data.
“If you don't have funding for a lawsuit it can be difficult, however, neither does the person that just left so you sometimes can send letters and phone calls to get your point across and make sure your trade secret isn't used inappropriately,” Axtell said.
Also, a company can seek other legal remedies if they suspect data that wasn't necessarily trade secrets was taken.
Axtell noted, “Don't forget that startups may have other rights. … For example, if an employee leaves and takes a software-based code with them that belongs to the company, that can be a copyright infringement or a good old-fashioned theft.”
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
- 1Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
- 2NY High Court Returns Fired Priest's Discrimination Claim to State Agency
- 3Digging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
- 4Reminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
- 5Consumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
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