Announcement Description
You are invited to
“Procedurally Speaking:  A Discussion on the Identification of Trade Secrets During Litigation and the Proper Form of Injunction Orders”
presented by:
Kenneth J. Vanko 
In this two-part presentation, Mr. Vanko will discuss important procedural issues that frequently arise during trade secrets litigation. The first part of the presentation will focus on the importance of properly identifying trade secrets during a lawsuit. Mr. Vanko will address identification considerations for both plaintiffs and defendants, along with suggested best practices and important case developments. The second half of the presentation will shift gears and focus on the proper form and scope of injunction orders. The discussion here will center on Rule 65’s procedural requirements for “specificity” and definiteness with respect to the sought-after injunction. Mr. Vanko will discuss the implications of seeking an injunction prohibiting the use of a trade secret, as well as broader injunctions that prohibit commercial activity beyond mere use.

AIPLA Trade Secret Committee Members

Thursday, April 17, 2014
12:00 pm PT / 2:00 pm CT / 3:00 pm ET

Join online meeting
Join by Phone
1-888-875-9370; Choose bridge 5.   
Conference ID: 334352630
Introduction of Presenter:
Kenneth J. Vanko, Clingen Callow & McLean, L.L.C.
 Mr. Vanko’s practice focuses on competition litigation, particularly in the areas of restrictive covenants, trade secret misappropriation, employee raiding, fiduciary duty compliance, partnership dissolution and dissociation, deceptive trade practices, and shareholder direct and derivative actions relating to deadlock, oppression and freeze-outs.
Mr. Vanko counsels and advises employees, executives and business owners on issues pertaining to competitive business transitions in a wide range of industries.  His focus is to address potential transition disputes early in the process to avoid and manage risk from an optimal position.
Mr. Vanko also coordinates and manages the firm’s chancery litigation practice and has extensive experience prosecuting and defending proceedings for injunctions and other equitable relief in state and federal courts. Finally, he drafts and negotiates contracts related to employment, professional services, licensing, distribution, and intellectual property protection.
We are working with AIPLA to see if CLE may be offered for this presentation.

​Kenneth Vanko's April 17 slides are now available (see below).  Special thanks to Ken for a great presentation.

“Procedurally Speaking:  A Discussion on the Identification of Trade Secrets During Litigation and the Proper Form of Injunction Orders"


​Agenda for Trade Secret Committee Meeting -- Friday, May 9, 2014

Here is the agenda for our call:
1.       Discussion of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and vote by email
2.       Spring Meeting Trade Secret Track
3.       Annual Meeting Trade Secret Track
4.       Future Brown Bag Lunch Presentations
5.       Trade Secret Summit Planning
6.       Reports from Subcommittee Chairs
7.       Floor open for other items.
The call in information is:
Thanks and hope you can join us on Friday.
Janet Craycroft, Chair AND John Marsh, Vice Chair
Dear Committee Members
We will be having a Committee conference call to update the Committee on the upcoming Trade Secret Summit, the status of recent proposed federal trade secret legislation, and a forthcoming report from our Best Practices Subcommittee.  I will follow up with a more detailed agenda next week but please save the date and time of 3 p.m. ET, Monday, September 29.  The call-in information for the conference call will be 866-321-0174, Pin No.: 255992#.
The Trade Secret Summit has been approved by the AIPLA and is scheduled for Dec. 4-5 at Intel’s headquarters in Santa Clara, California.  This is a tremendous opportunity for our Committee and we will really, really need attendance and a strong word of mouth push from all of our members, especially those of you in Northern California, to make this a successful event.  We have a great program and should be able to provide you with more details during the call.
Please RSVP to me if you plan on being on the call.  We look forward to your participation and please feel free to email Janet or me with any questions in the meantime.
Janet Craycroft, Chair
John Marsh, Vice Chair

​Special thanks to Christian Hicks, Neal Weinrich, and Jeremy Lang for an outstanding presentation!  Those of us who were able to attend found it incredibly informative.  If you were not able to attend (and even if you were), our speakers have graciously agreed to let us post their materials (see Committee Documents below).  A description of the Brown Bag topic follows:

“Evidence Collection in the Mobile Age: 
Obstacles & Opportunities in Mobile Forensic Collections”

presented by:
Christian B. Hicks and Neal F. Weinrich

In this presentation, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Weinrich discussed technical and legal considerations in computer-forensic investigations involving smartphones and tablets.  This session began with general forensic procedures and principles that originated with PCs, and then discussed how hardware, files, filesystems, and other technical, legal, and qualitative factors differ between defensible PC evidence collection and evidence collected from mobile devices.
Christian B. Hicks, President, Elysium Digital LLC
Christian Hicks is a computer scientist and entrepreneur who has served as an expert witness in more than a dozen legal matters on topics including computer forensics and trade-secret misappropriation.  As a consulting expert, Mr. Hicks has advised clients on more than 150 matters relating to intellectual property and computer forensics. Before co-founding Elysium Digital, he worked as a consultant for the AT&T Consumer Lab, where he developed data mining techniques and researched Internet programs and protocols. He is co-inventor on two patents on systems for unlocking remote electronic data. Mr. Hicks graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University with an A.B. in Computer Science. While there, his academic research focused on artificial intelligence and earned him the Computer Science Senior Prize.
Neal F. Weinrich, Principal, Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.
Neal Weinrich is a litigation attorney in Atlanta, Georgia.  Neal’s practice concentrates primarily on disputes involving restrictive covenants, trade secrets, and other competition-related issues.  Neal has litigated or arbitrated numerous competition-related disputes involving claims of tortious interference with business, contractual and/or employment relations, breaches of fiduciary duty, violations of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and violations of the Stored Communications Act.  Recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Georgia, Neal writes and speaks frequently on various issues that arise in competition-related cases.  He recently co-authored a chapter on Restrictive Covenant Litigation for Georgia Business Litigation, a book published in 2013 by Daily Report Books, a division of ALM Media, LLC.  Neal is also a co-founder and regular contributor to Georgia Non-Compete and Trade Secret News (

Dear Members, 

Here is the agenda for our call:

1.       Discussion of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and vote by email
2.       Spring Meeting Trade Secret Track
3.       Annual Meeting Trade Secret Track
4.       Future Brown Bag Lunch Presentations
5.       Trade Secret Summit Planning
6.       Reports from Subcommittee Chairs
7.       Floor open for other items.
The call in information is:
Thanks and hope you can join us on Friday.
Janet Craycroft, Chair  AND John Marsh, Vice Chair



Take a look at an interesting article in the AIPLA Quarterly Journal.

Social Network Analysis of Trade Secrets and Patents as Social Relations Members Only

David W. Opderbeck

This article employs the empirical tools of social network analysis to examine the “property as social relations” approach to intellectual property. Social network analysis seeks to describe and model society and culture based on the connections between agents in a network. A “property as social relations” perspective suggests that property rights emerge out of and help construct social relationships. But things become murky when this perspective is applied to basic intellectual property problems. One problem is the relationship between trade secrets and patents. In trade secret law, the social aspects of information have long been recognized. This intuition is confirmed by social network analysis. In fact, a notion of “social rivalry” permeates trade secret law. By contrast, in patent law, information continues to be viewed almost exclusively as a non-rivalrous economic commodity. Social network analysis demonstrates that the “social” qualities of an innovation are largely stripped away when the innovation moves from the trade secret domain to the patent domain. It is unclear, however, whether a “property as social relations” approach to patents would achieve the sorts of results its advocates hope would obtain.


Here is our agenda for today’s 3 p.m. ET call:
1.       Recap of Trade Secrets Summit and Annual Meeting
2.       Activating members’ “voting” vs. “non-voting” status for the Committee
3.       Appointment/volunteers for Subcommittee Chairs and Vice Chairs
4.       Planning for 2014 Trade Secret Summit and discussion of possible Silicon Valley location, 2 day session with CLE and other ideas
5.       Mid-Winter Meeting planning and Expo
6.       Spring Meeting Trade Secret Tracks and Possible Joint Session with IP Law in China Committee
7.       Possible Brown Bag presentations for upcoming year
8.       Ideas for recruiting new members, broadening appeal of Committee and better coordination with other AIPLA Committees
9.       Volunteers for liaisons for Mentoring, New Lawyers and other AIPLA Committees
10.   Upcoming survey on Summit
11.   Ideas for improvement and betterment of the Committee
If you did not receive dial-in information, please contact Janet Craycroft or John Marsh.

Dear Trade Secret Law Committee Members,
On behalf of the Subcommittee Members, we want to welcome you to the annual meeting.  For those of you who were able to attend the Trade Secret Law Summit, this week has started off with fantastic programming.  The Agenda is below in case you were unable to attend and would like to see the panel sessions.  Content will be posted soon. 
Our committee is scheduled to hold our bi-monthly meeting on Thursday at 4:30 pm-5:30 pm in the McKinley room, Mezzanine Level (Wardman Park Marriott Hotel, Washington DC).  Here is a the agenda: 
1.   Recap of the Trade Secret Summit – As you will hear, Peter Toren, Warrington Parker and Seth Hudson did a tremendous job in organizing the Summit, locating excellent speakers and providing excellent content on very short notice.  We are planning on putting together a survey that we will send to the Committee for its input on what we can do to expand the Summit’s reach next year.
2.     Planning for upcoming Mid-Winter Institute – we are looking for volunteers to help promote our Committee at the upcoming Institute, which will have an “Expo” highlighting the various committees
3.   Planning for 2013 Spring Meeting – Update on programming and ideas for possible CLE for Committee Meeting.
4.   Discussion of pending federal legislation and role, if any, Committee should have in legislation.
5.   Upcoming Online Programming – looking for volunteers for the “brown bag” CLE series.
6.    Reports from Subcommittee Chairs.
7.    Nominations and volunteers for 2014 Subcommittee Chairs and Vice Chairs – We have been blessed with an outstanding group of Subcommittee Chairs and Vice-Chairs but their terms are about to expire.  We are looking for volunteers or nominations for Vice Chairs and Chairs, as well as ideas for different subcommittees.  If anyone is interested, please let us know. 
8.   Creation of New Subcommittees – We are considering creating a Digital Forensics Subcommittee and would welcome any ideas for new subcommittees.
9.   Ideas for improvement of Committee – We want to discuss how we can do a better job of attracting in-house counsel as members and for leadership positions.  While the contributions of our outside counsel members have been tremendous, we want to have the balance and perspective of our in-house counsel members.  Any ideas or thoughts on more effectively recruiting and/or making our Committee more productive for in-house members would be greatly appreciated.  We would welcome any other ideas for the good of the Committee.
Unfortunately, AIPLA is not able to accommodate a teleconference call.  However, we will follow-up with another teleconference call in a week or so to update everyone on this meeting as well as to report out on this week’s Annual Meeting and 2nd Annual Trade Secret Law Committee Summit.
Thank you,
Janet Craycroft (Chair) & John Marsh (Vice Chair)
TRADE SECRET SUMMIT AGENDA (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)
9:00  – 10:45 am
The Dynamics of a Trade Secret Case - The Joys, Burdens & Frictions of the In-House & Outside Counsel Relationship
§  On-boarding Key Employees
§  Off-boarding employees who may be leaving to a competitor,
§  Ensuring your company’s trade secrets remain confidential when they may reside on the departing employee’s PDA, home computer, or in the cloud, and
§  Handling theft of trade secret litigation.
§  Christian Scali
Principal, The Scali Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA
§  Robert Milligan
Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Los Angeles, CA
§  Mark Mermelstein
Partner, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Los Angeles, CA
§  David Rikkers
Senior Counsel, Raytheon, Tewksbury, MA
10:45 - 11:00 am          Break
11:00 am - 12:00 pm
The First Strike - Successful Strategies for Obtaining or Defeating a TRO & Preliminary Injunction
§  Seth L. Hudson
Partner, Clements Bernard, PLLC, Charlotte, NC
§  P. Anthony Sammi
Partner, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, New York, NY
§  Kenneth J. Vanko
Member, Clingen Callow & McLean, LLC, Wheaton, IL
§  Russell Beck
Beck Reed Riden, LLP, Boston, MA
12:00 —1:00 pm                        Break
1:00 - 2:45 pm
The Cops Too? Concurrent Criminal & Civil Trade Secret Litigation
§  Benefits and Negative Implications for Plaintiffs and Defendants
§  Injunctive Relief and Damages
§  Discovery and Trial
§  Warrington S. Parker III
Partner, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, CA
§  William Molinski
Partner, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Los Angeles, CA
§  Eduardo Roy
Partner, DLA Piper, San Francisco, CA
2:45 - 3:00 pm                              Break
3:00  - 4:30 pm
A Heavy Hammer? The ITC & Trade Secret Investigations
§  So You Would Like to Bring a Case to the ITC, and Don’t Know What To Do Next
§  Trade Secrets Investigations Before the ITC
§  Pros/Cons of the ITC
§  Peter Toren
Partner, Weisbrod Matteis & Copley, LLP, Washington, DC
§  David Shaw
Judge, International Trade Commission, Washington, DC
§  Monica Bhattacharrya
Staff Attorney, International Trade Commission, Washington, DC
§  P. Andrew Riley
Partner, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Barrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC
4:30 - 5:00 pm         Panel Discussion
5:00 pm              Program Concludes
5:00 - 6:00 pm    Reception