Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
AIPLA Career & Practice Management Discussion Series - Protecting Trade Secrets in an Anti-Noncompete Era
March 2, 2021 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM
Member-benefit exclusive! A presentation from the Career & Practice Management Discussion Series.. No CLE credit available.
Noncompetition agreements have historically offered powerful protection against misappropriation of trade secrets. While a departing employee may have legal and contractual obligations to refrain from disclosing trade secrets to a subsequent competing employer, an enforceable noncompete means that the employer need not blindly trust that its former employee will remain faithful to these obligations. Removing the employee from the competitor effectively removes the threat. But noncompetes have fallen out of favor with many judges, state legislators, and even our new President, all of whom decry these agreements as being unfair to workers and improperly restrictive of their mobility in the labor market. Many states have enacted statutes limiting or prohibiting the enforcement of noncompetes, and the Biden Administration has forewarned of his intention to abolish them. In light of these challenges, noncompetes have become a less reliable tool, and businesses need to find alternative means to protect and secure their trade secrets. In this seminar, Tom McNulty, an intellectual property attorney at Lando & Anastasi, and Max Perlman an employment and trade secret litigator at Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP, will address the challenges and potential solutions through a discussion of the following topics:
- A Powerful Tool: Protecting Trade Secrets with Noncompetes
- Using noncompetes to protect trade secrets
- Unique protection offered by noncompetes
- Challenges to the Enforceability (and Existence, Even) of Noncompetes
- Recent court decisions
- State legislative efforts
- President Biden’s warnings
- Optimizing the Prospects for Enforcement of Noncompetes
- Reasonableness in scope and target
- Reasonableness in enforcement efforts
- Statutory compliance / adherence to presumptions
- Plan B: Protecting Trade Secrets in the Absence of Noncompetes
- Other restrictive covenants
- DTSA / UTSA / Inevitable disclosure
- Practical / technological solutions
- Special considerations for protecting trade secrets in a remote working environment
System requirements:
Webinar access is compatible with any Windows 7 or later computer, Android OS devices, or Apple/iOS devices. Check system compatibility here.
Accessibility for hearing impaired:
AIPLA’s webinars are available and accessible to individuals who are hearing impaired. If anyone at your location would like to know more about accommodations, please contact cle@aipla.org. We ask that you let us know at least 7 business days out from the webinar, to ensure that we can identify and deploy the solution that best fits our registrants needs.
Disclaimer: AIPLA is a nonprofit national bar association. The sole purpose of this CLE program is to provide educational and informational content. AIPLA does not provide legal services or advice. The opinions, views and other statements expressed by contributors to this CLE program are solely those of the contributors. These opinions, views and statements of the contributors do not necessarily represent those of AIPLA and should not be construed as such.
News
-
AIPLA Comments on CNIPA Draft Measures for Prioritized Patent Examination
April 1, 2026
Arlington, VA. March 30, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) regarding the Draft Measures for the Administration of Prioritized Examination of Patents. -
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc
March 31, 2026
Arlington, VA. March 27, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889. AIPLA urges the Court to affirm the Federal Circuit’s application of the established Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard and inducement law in reviewing Hikma’s motion to dismiss Amarin’s claim that Hikma’s conduct, in combination with its “skinny label,” induced infringement of Amarin’s patented treatment methods. -
Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
March 25, 2026
On March 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. The majority opinion limits contributory liability to situations where a party intended that its service be used for infringement, either by affirmatively inducing infringement or by selling a service tailored to infringement. A concurring opinion by Justice Sotomayor argues that the material contribution test should be retained, and that other forms of secondary liability can be found, which is consistent with the position asserted by AIPLA in its amicus brief filed on September 5, 2025. To read the opinion of the Court, please click here. -
AIPLA Comments on the Draft Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China
March 23, 2026
Arlington, VA. February 9, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress regarding the latest Draft Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China. AIPLA recognized the NPC’s efforts to streamline trademark procedures, strengthen protection, and address abusive and bad-faith filing practices. -
AIPLA Files Amicus Brief in USAA v. PNC Bank
March 3, 2026
Arlington, VA. March 2, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in USAA v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 25-853, in support of USAA’s petition for certiorari, urging the Court to provide much-needed guidance to address the unpredictable and overly broad application of the judicial exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly the “abstract idea” exception.
