Protecting Trade Secrets in the Remote Work Environment: Techniques and Solutions
In a series of articles, the authors previously addressed protection of trade secrets under New Jersey and federal law for companies that invent, manufacture, or supply original technologies or processes, and outlined new and increased threats to trade secrets in light of the shift to an increased remote work model as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, they analyze practical strategies and techniques for managing those threats.
October 19, 2022 at 10:00 AM
6 minute read
Trade SecretsWith the shift to remote and hybrid workplace models, information that was once physically stored in an office may now be electronically accessed and transmitted across accounts, network connections, and cloud sharing services. In this series of articles, we have addressed protection of trade secrets under New Jersey and federal law for companies that invent, manufacture, or supply original technologies or processes, and outlined new and increased threats to trade secrets in light of the shift to an increased remote work model as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now we analyze practical strategies and techniques for managing those threats.
|Retention for Protection
Data leaks by former (or current) employees may be intentional or unintentional. Departing employees may be less diligent in following security protocols by using personal devices and networks, putting data unintentionally at risk. Intentional leaks may occur if an ex-employee purposefully retains and shares IP or trade secret information with their new employer. Ex-employees may use their access to their former employer's trade information or clients as a "selling point" to a new company. Some disgruntled employees may intentionally reveal or sell trade secret information to hackers and receive a portion of the ransom. In fact, some companies reported breaches of this type from ex-employees. Some employees need to be reminded, while they may have invested countless hours creating certain trade secrets or proprietary information, that data created for your employer generally belongs to the employer. You are not permitted to take your work product with you when you leave. Clearly, the risks posed by former employees are severe—and the Great Resignation will continue to exacerbate these risks if employers do not take adequate security measures.
The first step to prevent former employees from sharing trade secret information with future employers is, of course, to retain employees. But, retainment will not always be possible. Employers may nonetheless take measures to protect their information when an employee leaves the company, including:
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 AllHarnessing Generative AI-Assisted Innovation: Comprehensive IP Protection Through Trade Secrets and Patents
8 minute readHolwell Shuster & Goldberg Partners Secure $81 Million Verdict Against Boeing in Trade Secret Dispute
1 minute readLG's 'Pro: Centric Catena' at Heart of Recently Filed Trade Secrets, Nondisclosure Lawsuit
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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