!
COZEN
O’CONNOR
ATTORNEYS
I
!
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
2005 Labor and Employment Seminar
Restrictive Covenants and Trade Secrets:
Unlocking and Protecting
the Secrets of Your Computer
A PROGRAM DESIGNED FOR IN HOUSE COUNSEL, HUMAN RESOURCE
PROFESSIONALS, OPERATIONS MANAGERS, RISK MANAGERS AND FINANCIAL
PROFESSIONALS WITH HUMAN RESOURCE RESPONSIBILITIES
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2005
THE RITrENHOUSE HOTEL
210 WEST RITrENHOUSE SQUARE
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
© Copyright 2005 by Cozen O’Connor. All Rights Reserved.
COZEN
O’CONNOR ~
ATTORNEYS
2005 LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SEMINAR
UNLOCKING AND PROTECTING THE SECRETS OF YOUR COMPUTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Speaker Profiles
II.
Restrictive Covenants - written and presented by Anita B. Weinstein, Esq.
III.
Trade Secrets- written and presented by David J. Walton, Esq.
IV.
Intellectual Properly Services - prestented by John F. Ashley
E-Discovery Process Matrix - presented by John F. Ashley
VI.
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (12 Pa.C.S. § 5301 (2004))
VII. Theft of Trade Secrets (18 Pa.C.S. § 3930 (2004))
I
|~
I
I
I
I
COZEN
O’CONNOR®
ATTORNEYS
SPEAKER PROFILES
Atlanta
Charlotte
Cherry Hill
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Houston
Las Vegas*
London
Los Angeles
New York
Newark
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Trenton
Washington, DC
West Conshohocken
Wichita
Wilmington
*Affiliated with the Law Offices of J. Goldberg & D. Grossman.
These materials are intended to generally educate the participants on current legal issues. They are not intended to provide
legal advice. Accordingly, these materials should not be relied upon without seeking specific legal advice on matters discussed
herein.
Copyright © 2005 Cozen O’Connor. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
I
!
I
!
i
COZEN
O’CONNOR.
ATTORNEYS
Carrie B. Rosen
Associate
Philadelphia Office
(215)665-6919
crosen@cozen.com
I
i
!
AREAS OF EXPERIENCE
- Labor & Employment
EDUCATION
- J.D. Vanderbilt University
Law School, 2000
- B.A. University of Rochester,
magna cure laude, 1997
MEMBERSHIPS
i
!
I
!
|
I
!
!
-
American Bar Association
Pennsylvania Bar Association
Philadelphia Bar Association
University of Rochester
Alumni Association
- Central High School of
Philadelphia Alumni
Association
- Vanderbilt Law School
Alumni Association
Came B. Rosen is an associate of the Firm who practices in the Labor and
Employment Department. She concentrates her practice in the representation of
management in responding to complaints of employment discrimination, providing
advice on workplace policies, and helping employers reach effective settlement
agreements. Ms. Rosen has experience in the areas of Title VII, ADA, ADEA,
FLSA, WARN, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination.
A native of Philadelphia, Ms. Rosen earned her law degree in 2000 from
Vanderbilt University Law School, where she served on the Moot Court Board and
participated in the Vanderbilt Legal Clinic. She received her Bachelor of Arts
degree in 1997 from the University of Rochester, where she graduated <i>magna
cum laude</i>, with honors and highest distinction.
Ms. Rosen was admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in 2000, and
was admitted to the bars of the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey in 2000, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in 2001.
She is a member of the American, Pennsylvania, and Philadelphia Bar
Associations.
!
I
!
i
I
COZEN
O’CONNOR~
ATTORNEYS
David Walton
Member
Philadelphia Office
(215) 665-5547
I
I
dwalton@cozen.com
AREAS OF EXPERIENCE
I
I
- Labor & Employment
!
- American Bar Association,
Labor & Employment Section
- City of Richmond Bar
Association
- Defense Research Institute
- Virginia Bar Association,
Labor & Employment Section
- Virginia Association of
Defense Attorneys
I
!
I
!
I
I
!
I
!
EDUCATION
- J.D. University of Richmond
School of Law, 1995
- B.S. Ithaca College, 1991
MEMBERSHIPS
Dave Walton, a member in the Philadelphia office’s Labor and Employment
Department, concentrates his practice in all aspects of employment discrimination
law. He has extensive experience both cotmseling employers in avoiding
discrimination claims and defending employers targeted by discrimination and
sexual harassment lawsuits. Mr. Walton also has substantial experience litigating
various issues relating to non-competition agreements, the protection of trade
secrets, and fiduciary duties under ERISA.
Mr. Walton uses his experience in representing a broad range of clients from large,
multi-national corporations to small companies to defend employers in all types of
employment discrimination claims. His experience in the emerging area of trade
secrets adds to Cozen O’Connor’s ability to help employers face the challenges
posed by the information-age economy. In addition, his substantial experience
lecturing to human resources professionals on wide-ranging issues in employment
law contributes to the firm’s ongoing efforts to provide clients with the tools
necessary to effectively manage their workforce.
Dave received his law degree with honors from the University of Richmond
School of Law in 1995. While at law school, he served as the Senior Notes &
Comments Editor of the University of Richmond Law Review and Vice-President
of the Negotiations Board. He was awarded the Sheppard Scholarship and the
American Jurisprudence and Corpus Juris Secundum Book Awards for Civil
Procedure. Dave also chaired the Robert H. Mehrige Environmental Law
Negotiations Competition and served on the Honor Court. He is a 1991 graduate
of Ithaca College where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in
Communications.
He is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and before the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Eastern and Western Districts of the Federal
Courts in Virginia. Dave is a member of the American, Commonwealth of
Virginia and City of Richmond Bar Associations, and the Committee on Labor and
Employment Law for both the American and Virginia Bar Associations. He also is
a member of the Defense Research Institute and Virginia Association of Defense
Attorneys.
I
I
I
i
I
I
!
I
COZEN
O’CONNOR°
ATTORNEYS
Anita B. Weinstein
Member
Philadelphia Office
(2 l 5) 665-2059
aweinstein@cozen.com
AREAS OF EXPERIENCE
- Labor & Employment
- Employment Practices
- Professional Liability
EDUCATION
!
I
!
I
I
I
!
- J.D. Temple University School
of Law, 1977; Member,
Temple Law Quarterly; Am
Jur Award for Best Paper,
Conflicts of Law
- B.A. Syracuse University, cum
laude, 1969
MEMBERSHIPS
-
American Bar Association
Pennsylvania Bar Association
Philadelphia Bar Association
Pennsylvania Defense Institute
Defense Research Institute
Anita B. Weinstein joined the Firm in July, 1980 and practices in the Labor and
Employment Department of the Philadelphia office. She has represented employers
in litigation involving workplace torts; sexual harassment; discrimination; the
Americans with Disability Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; joint
enterprise liability; defamation; trade secrets; non-compete agreements; and
employment contracts. She has tried more than 25 cases to verdict, winning 24 of
them.
Besides her active courtroom practice, Anita also counsels employers in a wide
variety of workplace matters. She appears frequently before the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and various state agencies.
Anita is a frequent speaker on employment law issues before both industry and
professional groups. She is sought out by broadcasters, such as National Public
Radio’s Radio Times, and by the print media, such as Working Women Magazine
and Entrepreneur Magazine, to provide commentary on recent developments in the
law.
Anita is a member of the American, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Bar
Associations. She is a member of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute and the
Defense Research Institute, as well.
Anita earned her Bachelor of Arts degree, cum laude, at Syracuse University in
1969 and her law degree at Temple University in 1977, where she was a member
of the Temple Law Quarterly. Also while at Temple, Anita earned a Best Paper
Award for her work in Conflicts of Law. She was admitted to practice in
Pennsylvania in 1977. She is also admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit, Sixth Circuit and the U.S. District Court Eastern, Middle
and Western Districts of Pennsylvania.
!
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
!
I
I
"::Z COREFACTS
Curriculum Vitae
John F. Ashley
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
E-mail
D/O~
Nationality:
Marital Status:
John F. Ashley
CoreFacts, LLC
14030 Thunderbolt Place, Suite 700
Chantilly, Virginia 20151
703.375.4345
i ashl ey@core facts .net
December 18, 1951
British
Married
Professional Experience
July 2000 to December 2000 - CoreFacts Resources, Director of Electronic Evidence Group
January 2001 to present - CoreFacts LLC, Chief Technology Officer
Responsible for designing, equipping and supervising one of the largest corporate
computer forensics laboratories on the East Coast. Forensic computer hardware
configured to optimize leading forensic software.
Case Studies
¯
¯
Representation of plaintiff corporation in a contractual dispute with federal
government requiring the restoration of 40 back-up tapes held on three different types
of magnetic media, containing the Emails and user created data of a staff of 160
persons. The data had been created over a 30-month period and total data size was
183 gigabytes. Three Email packages, MS Outlook, Netscape and ccMail were
successfully investigated.
Defense representation in a software trade secrets dispute requiring the capture of 14
terabytes of data within a 45-day period, without interrupting client’s workflow. Data
from 320 NT workstations, 90 NT laptops and 15 servers was forensically captured.
In excess of 300 search terms were run across the encapsulated data, all relevant
Email folders and electronic documents were hosted on secure web servers and
reviewed by more than 50 attorneys throughout the US.
l
I
!
l
I
l
!
i
I
!
i
I
!
i
!
I
i
¯
Plaintiff representation in a breach of fiduciary duty, contract, trade secret and
misappropriation of confidential information case requiring the capture of data from
five NT laptops and the restoration of six months backup of Email data for five
former employees.
¯ Plaintiff representation in a financial mismanagement case requiring the imaging and
investigation of 71 laptop drives.
1998 to July 2000 - Greater Manchester Police, Computer Examination Unit, Unit Head
¯ Responsible for forensic data retrieval from all computers used in crime, covering a
population of 3.5 million people.
¯ Managed workload increase from 153 cases in 1997 to 263 cases in 1999.
¯ Designed and installed Microsoft NT4 networks of investigation machines.
¯ Given additional responsibility for the forensic examination of all computers seized in
North Wales and the Isle of Man.
¯ Wide experience of covert intrusion investigations involving imaging, monitoring and
surveillance techniques.
¯ Employed on a consultative basis to manage the establishment of a number of
computer forensics units for a variety of UK police forces.
¯ Provided vulnerability advice to various public bodies.
¯ Considerable fraud investigation experience involving the majority of accountancy
software packages.
¯ Advised and assisted in technical interviews of computer skilled offenders on many
occasions.
1996 to 1998 - GMP Computer Examination Unit, Senior Forensic Investigator
¯ Managed the accreditation of the Unit to the intemationally accepted ISO 9002 standard.
¯ Designed and Installed a Novell network of investigation machines.
¯ Interviewed, appointed and trained forensic investigation detectives.
1989-1996 - GMP Obscene Publications Unit, Supervisor / Investigator
¯ The first police officer in the UK to investigate computer pornography.
¯ Responsible for data retrieval from pornographers’ and pedophiles’ computer systems.
¯ Investigated all forms of technical crime involving computers: hacking, cracking, virus
writing, phreaking, mobile phone cloning and credit card duplication.
¯ Lead investigator in a number of international obscenity and pedophile cases.
I
!
!
i
!
i
!
I
i
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
Expert Witness Testimony
¯ Expert witness in the investigation and prosecution of Dr. Harold Shipman for the
murder of 15 patients. Testified in relation to 12 of the 15 victims regarding the
forensic investigation of a complex computer network that revealed back dated and
falsely inserted records leading to the identification of victims who were subsequently
exhumed. Provided 500 exhibits and 120 witness statements relating to the suspicious
deaths of patients. Shipman found guilty on all counts.
Filmed and interviewed in the UK, by Ed Bradley, for CBS’s 60 Minutes regarding
the computer forensics skills deployed in this case. The program was screened in
January and June 2001.
Filmed and interviewed in the UK, by The Learning Channel regarding the computer
forensics skills deployed in this case. The program was screened in the US in March
2001.
¯ Expert witness for the prosecution in a trial involving the large-scale theft of hard
drives from Quantum. Performed a forensic financial analysis of the suspect’s
corporate server accounting packages. Investigation revealed a wide distribution
network throughout Europe. Testified in Wolverhampton Crown Court over a fiveday period. All five defendants found guilty.
¯ Expert witness for the prosecution in a trial involving the theft of corporate computers
throughout the north of England. Conducted forensic analysis of residual data found
on a large number of re-formatted stolen hard disk drives assisted in identifying the
original owners of recovered computer equipment. Testified in Manchester Crown
Court over a five-day period. Defendant found guilty.
¯ Expert witness for the prosecution in a trial involving the running of an electronic
bulletin board system that was the UK gateway to an international network involved
in the worldwide electronic distribution of obscene material. Testified in Maidstone
Crown Court. Two defendants found guilty.
¯ Expert witness for the prosecution in a trial involving the blackmail of 17 individuals.
Forensic examination of a word processing system revealed systematic threat letters
held in hidden and limbo files. Testified at Manchester Crown Court. Two defendants
found guilty.
¯ Expert witness for the prosecution in a trial involving international disk based
distribution of obscene material. Testified at Swindon Crown Court. Defendant found
guilty.
¯ Expert witness for the prosecution in a North Wales case involving distribution of
pedophilic material via the Internet. Forensic examination of a computer hard drive
refuted defense testimony that an unknown person had used Back Orifice 2000 and
Netbus to gain control of the defendant’s machine.
I
!
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
Notable Cases
¯
On behalf of the Securities and Futures Authority, assisted Guernsey Police and a
team of forensic accountants, in the forensic on-site imaging and investigation of two
computer networks comprising a total of 22 machines in relation to the Sumitomo
Corporation $2.6 billion copper fraud.
¯ On behalf of the FBI, carried out UK Home Office authorized house searches relating
to the recovery of computer related data from laptops and other storage media in the
possession of two Libyan males suspected of involvement in the bombing of US
Embassies in Africa.
¯ On behalf of the Isle of Man Police, investigated a laptop computer that had been
surrendered by the user who had found that he was being anonymously blackmailed
via Email. Forensic examination uncovered evidence that the user had gained
employment within the IT section of a major offshore bank and had accessed
customer’s private identification information, which was then provided to a criminal
group in Belgium. This group had subsequently blackmailed him via an Email service
provider in Texas when he had refused to assist them further with their criminal
activity.
¯ In conjunction with the US Customs and Postal Service, forensically investigated the
electronic contents of 18 hard drives used in Denmark to run two pedophile electronic
bulletin board systems. Recovered evidence led to the identification of individuals
who had downloaded pedophilia in the US and the UK.
¯ Forensic examination of two encrypted hard drives found evidence that led to the
simultaneous worldwide arrest of 120 pedophiles. Many of the individuals involved
were exchanging digital images of their actual abuse of children via secure web
servers, one of which was known as Wonderland and was located in Boston,
Massachusetts.
¯ Forensic examination of a suspect’s computer revealed 35 live viruses and plans to
infect viruses in a number of UK corporations. Further analysis revealed the breach of
a US based grocery company’s customer credit card database, where customer credit
card details had been posted on bulletin boards and used by group members for
international communication. This led to the simultaneous arrest of five individuals
who were collectively known as ArcV, a high profile virus-writing group.
¯ Forensic examination of a re-formatted hard drive revealed more than 100 fraudulent
Internet credit card purchase transactions and the distribution network for the illegally
purchased goods.
¯ On behalf of New Scotland Yard gained access to a number of electronic bulletin
boards that were distributing pedophilia. Subsequently provided evidence and
assistance to their technical experts and the Metropolitan Police Computer Crime
Unit.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Speaking Engagements
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
Appeared on a number of television and radio programs in the UK in relation to
computer forensics and communications investigation work.
Profiled on British weekly prime time show "The Cook Report" regarding techniques
used in identifying English users of a Danish pedophile Internet bulletin board.
Lectured on Computer Forensics at Merseyside Police Training College.
Lectured on Computer Crime at Bramshill Police Staff College.
Guest speaker at the British Computer Society.
Lectured on Computer Pornography at the University of Central Lancashire.
Lectured on Computer Crime at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology.
Consultant to the Association of Chief Police Officer’s Working Group into
Computer Pornography.
Presentations given at the Houses of Parliament and in Manchester to the Home
Affairs Select Committee that led to amendments to UK law in relation to the
sentencing of child offenders and the creation of a new offence in relation to
electronic pseudo photographs.
Lectured on Computer Forensics to the F3 Forum, a group comprising the majority of
UK law enforcement and corporate computer forensic experts.
Lectured on Computer Forensics at the American University, Washington D.C.
Lectured on Computer Fraud to the Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants.
Education
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
Educated at Sir John Deane’s Grammar School, Northwich, Cheshire graduating in
1969 with Certificates in Mathematics, English Language, Geography and French.
July 1969 Cheshire Constabulary Police Cadet graduate.
January to April 1971 Police Training Center Constable graduate.
October 1977 examination qualification to the rank of Sergeant.
October 1980 examination qualification to the rank of Inspector.
November 1989 to December 1993 in force computer investigation training with
ongoing IS specialist support.
1990 to 1994 various UK based data retrieval and network training seminars.
1995 Computer Forensics software and hardware training provided by Computer
Forensics Ltd.
1996 Advanced Computer Forensics software and hardware training provided by
Computer Forensics Ltd.
1996 Computer Forensics software and hardware training provided by Authentec
Data Recovery specialists.
1997 Advanced Computer Forensics techniques software and hardware training
provided by Vogon International Ltd.
1998 Data Networks and Communications training seminars provided by CLC.
Computer Forensics experiential learning throughout the period 1989 to 2003.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
US Expert Deposition and Testimony
December 2000, selected as an independent computer forensics expert by the Court of
Alexandria, Virginia, to assist in an intellectual property dispute that centered on
verifying the electronic time and date stamp information of the plaintiff’s software
prototypes and supporting electronic presentations. Subsequently deposed at length by
the plaintiff’s attorney. Four days into trial, the case settled at the plaintiff’s request, a
day prior to my scheduled testimony.
Dr. Bradley S. Fordham v. OneSoft Corporation, et al.,
Civil Action No. 00-1078-A (Eastern District of Virginia)
June 2001, testified and cross-examined as the defendant’s computer forensics expert,
before the judicial court of Harris County, Texas, in support of a defendant corporation’s
motion to mirror image and investigate the plaintiff’s electronic storage devices.
Motion granted.
Gyrodata Inc. v. Baker Hughes Inc. and Baker Hughes Inteq.,
th
Cause No. 2000-40391 (Harris County, Texas 127
Judicial District)
August 2001, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, deposed as
the plaintiff’s computer forensics expert in a multi defendant unsolicited bulk email
litigation. I provided expert opinion based on my analysis of more than 125,000 member
complaints.
AOL v. Net-vision Audiotext, dba Cyber Entertainment Network, et al.,
Civil Action No. 99-1186-A (Eastern District of Virginia)
September 2001, testified and cross-examined as the defendant’s computer forensics
expert, before the judicial court of Harris County, Texas, in support of a defendant
corporation’s rebuttal of a motion alleging spoliation of electronic evidence.
Gyrodata Inc. v. Baker Hughes Inc. and Baker Hughes Inteq.,
thJudicial District)
Cause No. 2000-40391 (Harris County, Texas 127
October 2001, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, deposed
as the defendants’ and counter-plaintiffs’ computer forensics expert in a breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, theft of trade secrets and violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act litigation.
Beyond Technology Corp. v. WebMethods, Inc., and K. Alyssa Berg,
Civil Action No. 01-655-A (Eastern District of Virginia)
October 2001, 53rd District Court of Travis County, Texas, deposed as the plaintiff’s
computer forensics expert in an employee solicitation and theft of trade secrets case.
Advanced Fibre Communications v. Calix Networks, Inc. and Tony Roach
Cause No.GN 102712 (53rd District Court of Travis County, Texas)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
June 2002, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers
Division, deposed as the defendants’ and counter-plaintiffs’ computer forensics expert in
a defamation and tortious interference with business relationships litigation.
Gary Van Meer, and Palm Harbor Medical, Inc. v. Stryker Sales Corp.,
Civil Action No. 2:00-CV-454-FTM-29D (Middle District of Florida)
June 2002, testified and cross-examined as a computer forensics expert, before the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, in support of
defendants’ and counter-plaintiffs’ motion alleging spoliation of electronic evidence.
Gary Van Meer, and Palm Harbor Medical, Inc. v. Stryker Sales Corp.,
Civil Action No. 2:00-CV-454-FTM-29D (Middle District of Florida)
September 2002, testified and cross-examined as the plaintiff’s computer forensics
expert, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division, in support of plaintiff’ s motion for contempt alleging spoliation of electronic
evidence and support of plaintiff’s rebuttal of defendant’s motion to dismiss preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order.
Plaintiff’ s motion for contempt upheld, with the defendant being ordered to pay all of the
plaintiff’s attorney’s and expert’s fees which were incurred during the investigation and
presentation of the contempt motion.
Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts B.V., Four Seasons Hotels (Barbados) Limited,
Four Seasons Hotels Limited, and Four Seasons Caracas, C.A.v. Consorcio Barr, S.A.,
and Carlos L. Barrera,
Case No. 01-4572 CIV-MOORE
October 2002, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, deposed
as the plaintiff’ s computer forensics expert in a litigation concerning unsolicited bulk
email. I provided expert opinion concerning the persons responsible for the transmission
of tens of millions of unsolicited bulk commercial emails.
Verizon Internet Services, Inc. v. Alan Ralsky, et al.,
Civil Action No. 01-0432-A (Eastern District of Virginia)
October 2002, testified as the defendant’s computer forensics expert, before the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, in response
to plaintiffs" motion alleging spoliation of electronic evidence.
Gary Van Meer, and Palm Harbor Medical, Inc. v. Stryker Sales Corp.,
Civil Action No. 2:00-CV-454-FTM-29D (Middle District of Florida)
November 2002, testified and cross-examined as the defendant’s computer forensics
expert, before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort
Myers Division, in rebuttal of plaintiffs’ computer forensics expert’s evidence supporting
a motion alleging spoliation of electronic evidence.
Gary Van Meer, and Palm Harbor Medical, Inc. v. Stryker Sales Corp.,
Civil Action No. 2:00-CV-454-FTM-29D (Middle District of Florida)
i
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
January 2003, testified and cross-examined, at trial, as plaintiff’s computer forensics
expert, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division. Testimony encompassed Computer Fraud and Abuse, Electronic
Communication Interception, and Trade Secret Theft.
Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts B.V., Four Seasons Hotels (Barbados) Limited,
Four Seasons Hotels Limited, and Four Seasons Caracas, C.A.v. Consorcio Barr, S.A.,
and Carlos L. Barrera,
Case No. 01-4572 CIV-MOORE
January 2003, rebuttal testimony and cross-examination, at trial, as plaintiff’ s computer
forensics expert, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division. Testimony encompassed Computer Fraud and Abuse,
Electronic Communication Interception, and Trade Secret Theft.
Rebuttal testimony proved that one of the defendant’s key electronic exhibits was not
original, but had been fabricated in an attempt to deceive the court.
Final Judgement issued May 9, 2003 awarded plaintiffs $4,877,600.00 in damages.
Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts B.V., Four Seasons Hotels (Barbados) Limited,
Four Seasons Hotels Limited, and Four Seasons Caracas, C.A.v. Consorcio Barr, S.A.,
and Carlos L. Barrera,
Case No. 01-4572 CIV-MOORE
May 2003, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, deposed as the
defendant’s computer forensic expert in a litigation alleging racial bias and
discrimination.
Provided testimony in relation to the alteration, fabrication and authentication of email.
The plaintiff withdrew his allegations a short time later and the case settled.
Timothy Dean and Michelle Dean v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., d/b/a
The St. Regis Washington by Starwood Hotels and Resorts
Civil Action No. 1:02CV00867
July 2003, testified and cross-examined, at trial, as plaintiff’s computer forensic expert,
before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria
Division. Testimony encompassed tortious interference with business relationships,
breach of contract, civil conspiracy and spoliation of data.
Plaintiff’s awarded in excess of $565,000 in damages.
CACI Dynamic Systems, Inc. v. Delphinus Engineering, Inc., and James R. Everitt, Jr.,
Civil Action No. 02-1454-A
January 2004, testified and cross-examined, in arbitration, as claimant’s computer
forensic expert, before an Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association
in Charleston, South Carolina. Testimony encompassed tortious interference with
business relationships, breach of contract and spoliation of data. Arbitrator subsequently
awarded claimant $10,567,478 and reimbursement of claimant’s arbitration costs.
CACI Dynamic Systems, Inc. v. V. Allen Spicer
AAA Case No. 16 160 00725 02
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 2004, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, deposed
as the defendant’s computer forensic expert in a litigation alleging unfair dismissal.
Provided testimony in relation to the creation and authentication of a document produced
in paper form by the plaintiff
Michelle Bell v. Davis & Partners, LLC and Wolf Management & Leasing, LLC,
Civil Action No. 03CV4175
November 2004, testified and cross-examined as plaintiff’s computer forensic expert, at a
Preliminary Injunction Hearing, before the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, Northern Division. Testimony encompassed the defendants’ co-ordinated use
of data destruction utilities to prevent the discovery of the plaintiff’s stolen source code
and proprietary information.
Bowe Bell + Howell Company v. Document Services Inc., and Albert M. Harris et al,
Civil Action No. 043418
November 2004, testified and cross-examined as plaintiff’s computer forensic expert, in
rebuttal to counter defendants’ testimony and provide pattern analysis to show the extent
of defendants’ data destruction efforts, at a Preliminary Injunction Hearing, before the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division.
The Judge granted the plaintiff broad injunctive relief and found that the defendants had
intentionally destroyed relevant documents and indicated that an adverse inference
instruction will likely be given to the jury as a sanction.
Bowe Bell + Howell Company v. Document Services Inc., and Albert M. Harris et al,
Civil Action No. 043418
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COZEN
O’CONNOR
ATTORNEYS
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
wrillen and presented /~,y
ANITA B. WEINSTEIN, ESQ.
COZEN O’CONNOR
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 665-2059 or (800) 523-2900
aweinstein@cozen.com
www.cozen.com
Atlanta
Charlotte
Cherry Hill
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Houston
Las Vegas*
London
Los Angeles
New York
Newark
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Trenton
Washington, DC
West Conshohocken
Wichita
Wilmington
*Affiliated with the Law Offices of J. Goldberg & D. Grossman.
These materials are intended to generally educate the participants on current legal issues. They are not intended to provide
legal advice. Accordingly, these materials should not be relied upon without seeking specific legal advice on matters discussed
herein.
Copyright © 2005 Cozen O’Connor. ALL R~GHTS RES~.~,VED.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
Written and Presented By
Anita B. Weinstein, Esquire
Cozen O’Connor
Labor and Employment Seminar
March 8, 2005
Restrictive Covenants
A.
Noncompete - Prohibits former employee from competing with former employer
in the same industry.
B.
Nondisclosure - Limits the dissemination of proprietary information.
C.
Non-solicitation - Prohibits former employee from soliciting present employees
of former employer and/or customers of former employer.
II.
Pennsylvania Courts Disfavor Restrictive Covenants Except When Certain
Couditions Are Met
lII.
Courts Will Enforce A Restrictive Covenant If It Is:
IV.
V.
A.
Ancillary to the acceptance of employment;
B.
Supported by adequate consideration ;
C.
Reasonably limited in time and geographic scope; and
D.
Reasonably designed to safeguard a legitimate interest of the former employer.
Ancillary, To The Acceptance Of Employment
A.
Beginning of employment; and
B.
Courts have held that restrictive covenants are enforceable ten (10) days after
employment.
Supported By Adequate Consideration
A.
Deemed to be adequate as a matter of law if it is part of the formation of the
employee relationship.
B.
VI.
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VII.
Additional consideration necessary if restrictive covenant entered into during the
course of employment.
Reasonably Limited In Time And Geographic Scope
A.
Employee has the burden of proof to show that covenant is unreasonable.
B.
One (1) year is generally considered to be reasonable.
C.
Where job involves intemet usage, a national limitation may be reasonable.
Reasonably Designed To Safeguard Legitimate Interests Of The Former Employer
A.
Goodwill and business information are legitimate business interests.
B.
Specialized training and skills are legitimate business interests.
C.
The protection of proprietary information is a legitimate business interest.
VIII. Damages
A.
TRO
B.
Preliminary injunction
C.
Permanent injunction
D.
Employee must prove irreparable harm
1.
IX.
Xa
Irreparable harm is that harm which cannot be adequately compensated in
damages due to
a)
nature of the right which was injured
b)
no pecuniary standards exist for the measurement of damages
Former Employees Have No Right To The Ideal Job But Do Have The Right To Be
Able To Earn A Livelihood
Relief Will Be Granted When Employer Proves
Ao
It will succeed on the merits;
B.
Irreparable harm will occur;
C.
There is no greater harm to the employee than to the employer; and
D.
It is in the public interest
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
XI.
To Insert A Noncompete Clause Into An Existing Employment Contract Or To
Have Employees Sign A Noneompete Clause During The Course Of Employment,
Employer Must Give The Employee A Corresponding Benefit - i.e. Adequate
Consideration For the Change In Status
XIL
Without Restrictions As To Time Or Geography, The Restrictive Covenant Is Not
Enforceable
XIII. Employers Cannot Restrict Employees From Working For A Competitor In Any
Capaci ,ty, But Only In Capacities In Which There Is Direct Competition
mo
Note: Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine - Employees in certain capacities acquire
proprietary information which they would not be able to keep confidential due to
the nature of their job. In other words, employee could not work for a competitor
without inevitably disclosing the proprietary information of his/her former
employer.
XIV. Covenants Not To Compete Are Not Assignable To An Asset Purchaser Absent A
Specific Assignability Provision In The Covenant If It Is Included In The Sale Of
The Assets
XV.
Courts Have Held That In Certain Professions, i.e. Mental Health Therapists,
Patients Have A Right To Select Their Own Treating Therapists. Therefore
Employers Can Not Limit A Former Employee From Treating Patients Of His/Her
Former Employer
I
!
I
|
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COZEN
O’CONNOR
ATTORNEYS ®
TRADE SECRETS
wrilten and presented
DAVID J. WALTON, ESQ.
COZEN O’CONNOR
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 665-5547 or (800) 523-2900
dwalton@cozen.com
www.cozen.com
Atlanta
Charlotte
Cherry Hill
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Houston
Las Vegas*
London
Los Angeles
New York
Newark
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Trenton
Washington, DC
West Conshohocken
Wichita
Wilmington
*Affiliated with the Law Offices of./. Goldberg & D. Grossman.
These materials are intended to generally educate the participants on current legal issues. They are not intended to provide
legal advice. Accordingly, these materials should not be relied upon without seeking specific legal advice on matters discussed
herein.
Copyright © 2005 Cozen O’Connor. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
I
I
!
TRADE SECRETS
Written and Presented By
David J. Walton, Esquire
Cozen O’Connor
Labor and Employment Seminar
!
I
March 8, 2005
What is the Law that Governs Trade Secrets in Pennsylvania?
i
A.
Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act
B.
Common Law - Section 757 of the Restatement (First) of Torts
II. What is a Trade Secret under PUTSA?
I
!
I
!
I
I
I
I
!
mo
PUTSA Definition
B.
Common Law Factors (pre-PUTSA)
C,
Key issue: Clients Lists
IlL What Can You Do If an Employee Takes Your Trade Secrets?
A.
PUTSA
1.
Proving Misappropriation under PUTSA
2.
Remedies Under PUTSA
a)
Injunction
b)
Actual Damages
c)
Disgorgement for Unjust Enrichment
d)
Exemplary Damages
e)
Punitive Damages
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
f)
Bo
Co
Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses
Defenses to Trade Secret Claims
1.
Independent Discovery
2.
Reverse Engineering
3.
Failure to Safeguard
Limitations Period Under PUTSA
a)
3-year limitations
b)
Continuing wrong
PUTSA Preemption
Related Common Law Claims
o
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
Tortious Interference with Contract/Business Relationship or Expectancy
2.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Duty of Loyalty
3.
Breach of Restrictive Covenant/Breach of Contract
4.
Inevitable Disclosure
5.
Civil Conspiracy
6.
Fraud
IV. Is There Criminal Liability for Stealing Trade Secrets?
Ao
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
B.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act
C.
The Economic Espionage Act of 1996
D.
The National Stolen Property Act
E.
Pennsylvania criminal statute relating to trade secrets
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V. How Can You Protect Your Trade Secrets?
ao
Confidentiality Agreements
B.
Non-Disclosure Agreements
C.
Employee Handbooks/Notices
D.
Restrictive Covenants
E.
Passwords and Other Security Measures for Electronic Information
F.
Designate/Label Material as Confidential
G.
Limit Employee Access to Trade Secrets and Confidential Information
H.
Internet and Intranet Issues
I.
Physical Security Measures
PHILAlk2229498\I 099994.000
COZEN
O’CONNOR
ATTORNEYS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SERVICES
presented
JOHN F. ASHLEY
COREFACTS
14030 Thunderbolt Place, Suite 700
Chantilly, Virginia 20151
(703) 375-4340
jashley@corefacts.net
www.corefacts.net
!
I
I
I
!
!
I
I
!
I
i
I
!
!
I
!
!
i
!
I
I
i
I
!
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SERVICES
Originally founded to service the investigative needs of the IP litigation community,
CoreFacts leads the field of IP investigators by using traditional and innovative
techniques to prove or disprove infringements, covenant and trade secret claims and to
protect intellectual property here and abroad.
Theft of Trade Secrets by Former Employees:
CoreFacts provides evidence for temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions or
damage awards at trial. This information may include:
¯ Whether officers are violating fiduciary duties
¯ Whether employees are violating employment and post-employment covenants
¯ Whether trade secrets or other intellectual property has been stolen or leaked
Web-Based Investigations:
We seek to determine:
¯ Who is sending threatening emails or creating corporate rumors
¯ Who is writing slandering messages on Internet bulletin boards
¯ Who is using the Internet to steal proprietary information
¯ Who is sending spam in violation of state and federal law
Software Infringements:
Our professionals use a variety of techniques to show our clients’ software has been
stolen, including:
¯ Comparing source codes and providing expert reports
¯ Writing software that isolates changes to our clients’ source code or shows that
the errors imbedded in our clients’ code exists in the competitors’ software
¯ Using sting operations to identify stolen software patches
¯ Reviewing public records, attending trade shows and conducting interviews
Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Infringements:
These actions are driven by the facts. While we do not attempt to replace subject-matter
experts, we use our techniques and professional skills to gather facts of infringements and
vet and identify expert witnesses.
Diversions and Counterfeits:
We use a variety of techniques to:
¯ Identify the weaknesses in the supply chain
¯ Track the movement of diverted goods
¯ Vet distributors for gray market and financial problems
¯ Monitor manufacturing and distributor agreements
¯ Create intelligence gathering networks to identify counterfeiters
¯ Manage criminal and civil seizures
¯ Gather evidence for civil suits against diverters and counterfeiters
-° COREFACTS
I
I
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASE STUDIES
I
i
I
!
I
i
i
i
An international chemical company became suspicious when the President of a
division left the company, and shortly thereafter, the lead chemist and three
salesmen quit, claiming that they had no new employment. CoreFacts’
investigators quickly established that the President had leased offices with space
for a chemical lab and many employees. The lease was in the name of a
competitor. Investigators also determined that the competitor’s chief chemist
developed our client’s most closely-held chemical compounds. Finally, our
investigators gathered evidence that the former President solicited employees and
customers. The client’s legal team used this evidence to obtain a temporary
restraining order and a subsequent preliminary injunction.
A former employee/shareholder succeeded in a lawsuit against his former
employer seeking compensation that far exceeded his ownership interest. The
former employer retained CoreFacts to obtain negotiating leverage against the
former shareholder. Instead of merely investigating the target, we studied the
former employee’s employment contract and determined that he had continuing
obligations to his former company not to compete against it and not to solicit
employees and customers. Investigators quickly determined the name and location
of the target’s new employer and found that it changed its product and service
offerings to compete against our client soon after the target joined the company.
By performing a forensic analysis of the target’s laptop and collecting his
abandoned property, CoreFacts learned that the former employee was now using
our client’s proprietary business methods and contacts to obtain additional
financing for his new venture.
In fewer than three weeks, CoreFacts provided our client with evidence that the
former employee had misappropriated proprietary information regarding the
company’s clients, pricing information, and business methods. We also provided
physical proof that he was operating a competing business and soliciting our
client’s customers. Finally, we obtained a copy of the new company’s
government procurement schedule and showed that it mimicked our client’s.
Ultimately, we provided our client with all of the information that it needed to
negotiate a more favorable settlement.
:’=" COREFACTS
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
I
I
!
I
I
!
I
i
i
COMPUTER FORENSICS SERVICES
Computer forensics experts are the ultimate digital archeologists who uncover hidden
data artifacts often comprised of tiny fragments of files. They are linguists who interpret
the meaning of the data, and they are trial certified experts who authenticate and explain
the digital evidence to a judge and jury.
Computer forensics investigators render a wide range of diverse and vital services that
fall within the general categories of data collection, preservation, and investigation. Our
assignments include determining:
The authenticity of an electronic file or e-mail
Whether data has been migrated to portable media or alternative servers or
transmitted over the Internet
Whether an electronic document’s metadata contains evidence that will tend
to support or refute a claim
Whether evidence is "buried" within temporary files, replicant files, swap
files, other systemically-created files, or within the computer’s unallocated
space
Whether storage media contains previously deleted or erased documents, parts
of documents or drafts of documents
The extent and nature of purposeful or negligent deletions, electronic
"shredding," use of defragmentation programs, the installation software or
other activities used to destroy, alter or corrupt electronic data
Whether electronic evidence has been password-protected or encrypted and
how to access the information contained within
CoreFacts’ team is led by John F. Ashley, the storied founder and former director of the
largest law enforcement computer forensics unit in Europe. John’s experience includes
numerous and diverse assignments and expert testimony roles -- more than virtually any
other specialist working in the United States. John’s team is hand-picked and wellcredentialed, creating one of the deepest "benches" of forensics experts in the industry.
CoreFacts’ experts reside on both coasts, have done work on four continents, and they
have testified in local, state and federal courts in the United States and Western Europe,
and before the British Houses of Parliament. John Ashley has been featured on television
shows such as 60 Minutes and The Cook Report and on networks such as The Learning
Channel
Client assignments involve CoreFacts in high-profile and complex matters such as
restrictive covenant and trade secret theft litigation, investigations of frauds and
international corporate espionage, cases of evidence destruction, subsequent cover-ups,
false claims based on "doctored" evidence, asset diversions, Internet-based criminal
activity, actionable spoliation matters, and a broad assortment of data authentication
issues. CoreFacts is also expert in establishing, auditing and validating evidence
preservation protocols for data relevant to litigation and regulatory compliance matters.
i
!
COMPUTER FORENSICS CASE STUDIES
!
I
i
I
I
I
!
!
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
A United States corporation suspected that key executives in its Asia office were
deleting e-mails relevant to an on-going Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) investigation. Just four hours after we were engaged, our experts were on
airplanes to the client site in Beijing. To avoid an international incident, we left
our specialized equipment in Hong Kong and tackled the job with cables and
disk-based software. Eighteen hours later, we shipped forensic images of 26
laptops to the United States. Investigation of those images led to recovery of
critical e-mail demanded by the SEC that would otherwise have been lost forever.
A dry goods vendor claimed to have a binding contract with our client, a national
retail company, based on an e-mail from our client. When the alleged e-mail
contract became the focus of a bitter litigation between the parties, CoreFacts was
engaged to consult with outside counsel and provide evidence that the e-mail had
been altered or fabricated. After obtaining an order to inspect the opponent’s
relevant computer media including two laptop computers, CoreFacts provided
evidence to the court showing that the opponent’s Chief Executive Officer had
altered the document repeatedly and that he had testified falsely to cover-up his
misdeeds. The court referred the Chief Executive Officer for prosecution by the
local District Attorney’s office. Faced with the evidence, the Chief Executive
Officer entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to a fine and five months in
prison.
After a group of consultants left a sports agency with a variety of proprietary
documents, CoreFacts found evidence that formed the basis of a successful
preliminary injunction action and a RICO case against the renegades. A
document, titled "Game Plan," contained step-by-step directions to betray the
company, steal its clients and trade secrets, and to blackmail the principals if they
were caught. The targets had been careful not to use their office computers to
create incriminating documents. However, Game Plan had been printed on an
office computer, and our experts were able to locate it in the swap file. The
ringleader and several other participants in the conspiracy were later forced into
bankruptcy.
In a well-publicized case involving corporate espionage, CoreFacts’ experts
proved that the litigation opponent, a Venezuelan company, hacked into our
client’s servers, stole confidential client information, and then attempted to delete
the evidence. CoreFacts used a proprietary protocol to recover 92 double deleted
emails with 38 attached encrypted spreadsheets. We then cracked the encryption
and proved that these files contained our client’s valuable and proprietary
information. The opponent defended its possession, claiming that our client
provided it on floppy disks in February 2002. However, CoreFacts proved that
the disks produced as originals from February 2002 were not manufactured until
four months later. Our evidence was the basis of the court’s finding for our client
on the merits and in its contempt ruling against our opponent.
I
I
I
I
I
E-DISCOVERY SERVICES
CoreFacts is a vertically integrated e-discovery firm that offers cradle to grave service in
the field of e-discovery.
Initial Consulting:
CoreFacts provides consulting advice to assure that relevant and potentially relevant
evidence is preserved. Our experts review the requests, identify the likely sources of
responsive data, and advise our clients about possible methods to be employed. We meet
with our clients’ IT group to determine its systems’ architecture and to devise a plan for
efficiently preserving the data. In designing a strategy, CoreFacts’ forensic experts
develop methods for tracking and authenticating the data as it is captured, processed,
prioritized, posted, and produced.
Data Collection and Preservation:
CoreFacts provides protocols designed to satisfy courts and opposing parties while
reducing the scope and cost of e-discovery. We also act as liaison between counsel and
the client’s IT staff, and we manage the IT staff to assure compliance with agreed upon
methods of collection and proper record keeping so that data can be authenticated in
court. CoreFacts’ experts testify regarding the collection process to counter spoliation
claims and to assure the court that our clients have adhered to any court orders and
agreements between the parties.
Data Reduction:
CoreFacts works with clients to ensure that only responsive and non-privileged data is
produced. Once the potentially responsive data has been identified, CoreFacts uses its
proprietary methods to reduce the universe of the electronic files. In most cases,
CoreFacts reduces the mass by as much as 60%.
i
i
i
i
!
!
I
I
Data Conversion:
Once the data has been reduced, CoreFacts converts the data into a format that can be
used by the chosen document management system.
Data Delivery, Review and Production:
CoreFacts helps clients choose the appropriate vehicle for storing and managing the data.
We can create customized systems to reduce costs and provide efficiencies. Or, we will
contract with a system vendor, supervise its work, act as a liaison throughout the project,
and testify about the handling of the data when needed. We will also provide and
configure computers for our clients.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COZEN
O’CONNOR
ATTORNEYS
E-DIsCOVERY PROCESSES MATRIX
presented/~v
JOHN F. ASHLEY
COREFACTS
14030 Thunderbolt Place, Suite 700
Chantilly, Virginia 20151
(703) 375-4340
jashley@corefacts.net
www.corefacts.net
!
!
m
!
N
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
o~e ~
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COZEN
O’CONNOR
ATTORNEYS
UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
(12 PA.C.S. § 5301 (2004))
COZEN O’CONNOR
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 665-2000 or (800) 523-2900
www.cozen.com
Atlanta
Charlotte
Cherry Hill
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Houston
Las Vegas*
London
Los Angeles
New York
Newark
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Trenton
Washington, DC
West Conshohocken
Wichita
Wilmington
*Affiliated with the Law Offices of J. Goldberg & D. Grossman.
These materials are intended to generally educate the participants on current legal issues. They are not intended to provide
legal advice. Accordingly, these materials should not be relied upon without seeking specific legal advice on matters discussed
herein.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEXSTAT 12 PS 5301
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, ANNOTATED BY LEXISNEXIS(R)
* THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH ACT 146 OF THE 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION *
*** With exceptions as detailed in the Online Product Guide ***
*** FEBRUARY 2005 ANNOTATION SERVICE ***
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
TITLE 12. COMMERCE AND TRADE
PART V. [MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS]
CHAPTER 53. TRADE SECRETS
GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION
12 Pa.C.S. § 5301 (2004)
§ 5301. Short title of chapter
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
HISTORY: Act 2004-14 (S.B. 152), § 1, approved Feb. 19, 2004, eff. in 60 days.
LexisNexis (R) Notes:
TREATISES AND ANALYTICAL MATERIALS
1. 1 P.L.E. CRIMINAL LAW § 1591, Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, CRIMINAL LAW, § 1591 General
Considerations, Copyright 2004, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group..
2. 1 P.L.E. TORTS § 7, Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, TORTS, § 7 Interference with Legal Right, Copyright 2004,
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group..
3.9-144 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.02, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures, State Statutes, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms.
4.9-144 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.41, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures, Covenants to Protect Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
5.9-144 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.273, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures, Provision Specifying Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
6. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.04, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 3 Business and Consumer Relations, State Statutes, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms.
I
I
I
!
!
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
Page 2
12 Pa.C.S. § 5301
7. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.20, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Divis ion 3 Business and Consumer Relations, Common Law Claims, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms.
8. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.24, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 3 Business and Consumer Relations, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
LEXSTAT 12 PS 5302
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, ANNOTATED BY LEXISNEXIS(R)
* THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH ACT 146 OF THE 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION *
*** With exceptions as detailed in the Online Product Guide ***
*** FEBRUARY 2005 ANNOTATION SERVICE ***
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
TITLE 12. COMMERCE AND TRADE
PART V. [MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS]
CHAPTER 53. TRADE SECRETS
GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION
12 Pa.C.S. § 5302 (2004)
§ 5302. Definitions
The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this section
unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Improper means." Includes, but is not limited to, theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach
of a duty to maintain secrecy or espionage through electronic or other means.
"Misappropriation." Includes:
(1) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or
has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper
means; or
(2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or
implied consent by a person who:
(i) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;
(ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know
that his knowledge of the trade secret was:
(A) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper
means to acquire it;
(B) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain
its secrecy or limit its use; or
(C) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person
seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(iii) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to
know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
i
Page 2
12 Pa.C.S. § 5302
acquired by accident or mistake.
"Person." A natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture,
government, governmental subdivision or agency or any other legal or commercial entity.
"Trade secret." Information, including a formula, drawing, pattern, compilation including a customer list, program,
device, method, technique or process that:
(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not
being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper
means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its
disclosure or use.
(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the
circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
"Willful and malicious." Such intentional acts or gross neglect of duty as to evince a reckless indifference of the rights
of others on the part of the wrongdoer, and an entire want of care so as to raise the presumption that the person at fault
is conscious of the consequences of his carelessness.
HISTORY: Act 2004-14 (S.B. 152), § 1, approved Feb. 19, 2004, eff. in 60 days.
LexisNexis (R) Notes:
TREATISES AND ANALYTICAL MATERIALS
1.9-144 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.41, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures, Covenants to Protect Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
2.9-144 Pemasylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.272, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures, Provision Containing Covenant Not to Solicit Employer’s Customers,
Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms.
3.9-144 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.273, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures, Provision Specifying Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
4. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.24, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 3 Business and Consumer Relations, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
I
I
i
I
LEXSTAT 12 PS 5303
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, ANNOTATED BY LEXISNEXIS(R)
* THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH ACT 146 OF THE 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION *
*** With exceptions as detailed in the Online Product Guide ***
*** FEBRUARY 2005 ANNOTATION SERVICE ***
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
TITLE 12. COMMERCE AND TRADE
PART V. [MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS]
CHAPTER 53. TRADE SECRETS
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION
12 Pa.C.S. § 5303 (2004)
§ 5303. Injunctive relief
(a) INJUNCTIONS.-- Actual or tlueatened masappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an
injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an
additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from
the misappropriation.
(b) EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.-- In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use
upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which use could have been prohibited.
Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position prior to
acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable.
(c) AFFIRMATIVE ACTS COMPELLED BY COURT ORDER.-- In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to
protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.
HISTORY: Act 2004-14 (S.B. 152), § 1, approved Feb. 19, 2004, eff. in 60 days.
LexisNexis (R) Notes:
TREATISES AND ANALYTICAL MATERIALS
1.9-144 Pelmsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.41, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures, Covenants to Protect Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
2. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.24, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 3 Business and Consumer Relations, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
I
i
I
!
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
LEXSTAT 12 PS 5304
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, ANNOTATED BY LEXISNEXIS(R)
* THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH ACT 146 OF THE 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION *
*** With exceptions as detailed in the Online Product Guide ***
*** FEBRUARY 2005 ANNOTATION SERVICE ***
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
TITLE 12. COMMERCE AND TRADE
PART V. [MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS]
CHAPTER 53. TRADE SECRETS
GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION
12 Pa.C.S. § 5304 (2004)
§ 5304. Damages
(a) MONETARY DAMAGES.-- Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to
acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable, a complainant is
entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation
and the unjust enrictunent caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of
damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of
liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator’s unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret.
(b) EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.-- If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary
damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (a).
HISTORY: Act 2004-14 (S.B. 152), § 1, approved Feb. 19, 2004, eft’. in 60 days.
LexisNexis (R) Notes:
TREATISES AND ANALYTICAL MATERIALS
t. 9-144 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.41, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures; Covenants to Protect Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
2. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.24, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 3 Business and Consumer Relations, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
LEXSTAT 12 PS 5305
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, ANNOTATED BY LEXISNEXIS(R)
* THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH ACT 146 OF THE 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION *
*** With exceptions as detailed in the Online Product Guide ***
*** FEBRUARY 2005 ANNOTATION SERVICE ***
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
TITLE 12. COMMERCE AND TRADE
PART V. [MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS]
CHAPTER 53. TRADE SECRETS
GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION
12 Pa.C.S. § 5305 (2004)
§ 5305. Attorney fees
A court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses and costs to the prevailing party:
(1) ifa claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith;
(2) a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad
faith; or
(3) willful and malicious rmsappropriation exists.
HISTORY: Act 2004-14 (S.B. 152), § 1, approved Feb. 19, 2004, eff. in 60 days.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEXSTAT 12 PS 5306
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, ANNOTATED BY LEXISNEXIS(R)
* THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH ACT 146 OF THE 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION *
*** With exceptions as detailed in the Online Product Guide ***
*** FEBRUARY 2005 ANNOTATION SERVICE ***
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
TITLE 12. COMMERCE AND TRADE
PART V. [MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS]
CHAPTER 53. TRADE SECRETS
GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION
12 Pa.C.S. § 5306 (2004)
§ 5306. Preservation of secrecy
In any action under this chapter, a court shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means
which may include, but are not limited to, granting protective orders in connection with discovery proceedings, holding
in camera hearings, sealing the records of the action and ordering any person involved in the litigation not to disclose an
alleged trade secret without prior court approval.
HISTORY: Act 2004-14 (S.B. 152), § 1, approved Feb. 19, 2004, eff. in 60 days.
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEXSTAT 12 PS 5307
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, ANNOTATED BY LEXISNEXIS(R)
* THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH ACT 146 OF THE 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION *
*** With exceptions as detailed in the Online Product Guide ***
*** FEBRUARY 2005 ANNOTATION SERVICE ***
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
TITLE 12. COMMERCE AND TRADE
PART V. [MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS]
CHAPTER 53. TRADE SECRETS
GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION
12 Pa.C.S. § 5307 (2004)
§ 5307. Statute of limitations
An action under this chapter for masappropriation must be brought within three years after the misappropriation was
discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.
HISTORY: Act 2004-14 (S.B. 152), § 1, approved Feb. 19, 2004, elf. in 60 days.
LexisNexis (R) Notes:
TREATISES AND ANALYTICAL MATERIALS
1. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.24, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 3 Business and Consumer Relations, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEXSTAT 12 PS 5308
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, ANNOTATED BY LEXISNEXIS(R)
* THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH ACT 146 OF THE 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION *
*** With exceptions as detailed in the Online Product Guide ***
*** FEBRUARY 2005 ANNOTATION SERVICE ***
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
TITLE 12. COMMERCE AND TRADE
PART V. [MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS]
CHAPTER 53. TRADE SECRETS
GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION
12 Pa.C.S. § 5308 (2004)
§ 5308. Effect on other law
(a) GENERAL RULE.-- Except as provided in subsection (b), this chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary
and other law of this Comlnonwealth providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.-- This chapter does not affect:
(1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of
a trade secret;
(2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a
trade secret; or
(3) criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a
trade secret.
HISTORY: Act 2004-14 (S.B. 152), § 1, approved Feb. 19, 2004, eff. in 60 days.
LexisNexis (R) Notes:
TREATISES AND ANALYTICAL MATERIALS
1. 1 P.L.E. CRIMINAL LAW § 1591, Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, CRIMINAL LAW, § 1591 General
Considerations, Copyright 2004, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group..
2. 1 P.L.E. TORTS § 7, Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, TORTS, § 7 Interference with Legal Right, Copyright 2004,
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group..
3.9-144 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.41, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures, Covenants to Protect Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
12 Pa.C.S.§ 5308
4. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.20, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 3 Business and Consumer Relations, Common Law Claims, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms.
5. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.24, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 3 Business and Consumer Relations, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COZEN
O’CONNOR
ATTORNEYS
THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS
(18 PA.C.S. § 3930 (2004))
COZEN O’CONNOR
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 665-2000 or (800) 523-2900
w~vw.cozen.com
Atlanta
Charlotte
Cherry Hill
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Houston
Las Vegas*
London
Los Angeles
New York
Newark
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Trenton
Washington, DC
West Conshohocken
Wichita
Wilmington
*Affiliated with the Law Offices of J. Goldberg & D. Grossman.
These materials are intended to generally educate the participants on current legal issues. They are not intended to provide
legal advice. Accordingly, these materials should not be relied upon without seeking specific legal advice on malters discussed
herein.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEXSTAT 18 PS 3930
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, ANNOTATED BY LEXISNEXIS(R)
* THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH ACT 146 OF THE 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION *
*** With exceptions as detailed in the Online Product Guide ***
*** FEBRUARY 2005 ANNOTATION SERVICE ***
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
TITLE 18. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
PART II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES
ARTICLE C. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
CHAPTER 39. THEFT AND RELATED OFFENSES
SUBCHAPTER B. DEFINITION OF OFFENSES
GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION
18 Pa.C.S. § 3930 (2004)
§ 3930. Theft of trade secrets
(a) FELONY OF THE SECOND DEGREE.-- A person is guilty of a felony of the second degree if he:
(1) by force or violence or by putting him in fear takes from the
person of another any article representing a trade secret;
(2) willfully and maliciously enters any building or other structure
with intent to obtain unlawful possession of, or access to, an article
representing a trade secret; or
(3) willfully and maliciously accesses any computer, computer network
or computer system, whether in person or electronically, with the
intent to obtain unlawful possession of, or access to, an article
representing a trade secret.
(b) FELONY OF THE THIRD DEGREE.-- A person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he, with intent to
wrongfully deprive of, or withhold from the owner, the control of a trade secret, or with intent to wrongfully appropriate
a trade secret for his use, or for the use of another:
(1) unlawfully obtains possession of, or access to, an article
representing a trade secret; or
(2) having lawfully obtained possession of an article representing a
trade secret, or access thereto, converts such article to his own use
or that of another person, while having possession thereof or access
thereto makes, or causes to be made, a copy of such article, or
exhibits such article to another.
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
18 Pa.C.S. § 3930
(c) FURTHER DISPOSITION IRRELEVANT.-- The crime or crimes defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this
section shall be deemed complete without regard to the further disposition, return, or intent to return, of the article
representing a trade secret.
(d) DEFENSE.-- It shall be a complete defense to any prosecution under subsection (b) of this section for the
defendant to show that information comprising the trade secret was rightfully known or available to him from a source
other than the owner of the trade secret.
(e) DEFINITIONS.-- As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them
in this subsection:
"Article." Any object, material, device or substance or copy thereof, including any writing, record, recording,
drawing, description, sample, specimen, prototype, model, photograph, microorganism, blueprint or map.
"Computer." An electronic, magnetic, optical, hydraulic, organic or other high-speed data processing device or system
which performs logic, arithmetic or memory functions and includes all input, output, processing, storage, software or
communication facilities which are connected or related to the device in a system or network.
"Computer network." The interconnection of two or more computers through the usage of satellite, microwave, line or
other communication medium.
"Computer system." A set of related, connected or unconnected computer equipment, devices and software.
"Copy." Any facsimile, replica, photograph or reproduction of, an article, or any note, drawing, sketch, or description
made of, or from an article.
"Representing." Describing, depicting, containing, constituting, reflecting or recording.
"Trade secret." The whole or any portion or phase of any scientific or technical information, design, process,
procedure, formula or improvement which is of value and has been specifically identified by the owner as of a
confidential character, and which has not been published or otherwise become a matter of general public knowledge.
There shall be a rebuttable presumption that scientific or technical information has not been published or otherwise
become a matter of general public knowledge when the owner thereof takes measures to prevent it from becoming
available to persons other than those selected by him to have access thereto for limited purposes.
(f) CONSTRUCTION.-- Nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with or prohibit terms or conditions in
a contract or license related to a computer, a computer network or computer software.
HISTORY: Act 2004-14 (S.B. 152), § 2, approved Feb. 19, 2004, elf. in 60 days.
LexisNexis (R) Notes:
TREATISES AND ANALYTICAL MATERIALS
1. 1 P.L.E. CRIMINAL LAW § 1591, Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, CRIMINAL LAW, § 1591 General
Considerations, Copyright 2004, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group..
2. 1 P.L.E. LABOR § 22, Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, LABOR, § 22 Trade Secrets of Employer, Copyright 2004,
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group..
3. 1 P.L.E. TORTS § 7, Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, TORTS, § 7 Interference with Legal Right, Copyright 2004,
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc, a member of the LexisNexis Group..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 3
18 Pa.C.S. § 3930
4. 9-144 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.41, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures, Covenants to Protect Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
5.9-144 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 144.273, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 2 Business Contracts and Procedures, Provision Specifying Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
6. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.04, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 3 Business and Consumer Relations, State Statutes, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms.
7. 10-161 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide--Legal Forms § 161.24, UNIT 3 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
Division 3 Business and Consumer Relations, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Pennsylvania Transaction Guide-Legal Forms.
PRINCIPAL OFFICE
PHILADELPHIA
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3508
Tel: 215.665.2000 or 800.523.2900
Fax: 215.665.2013
For general information please contact:
Joseph A. Gerber, Esq.
ATLANTA
Suite 2200, SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308-3264
Tel: 404.572.2000 or 800.890.1393
Fax: 404.572.2199
Contact: Michael A. McKenzie, Esq.
CHARLOTI’E
Suite 2100, 301 South College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-6037
Tel: 704.376.3400 or 800.762.3575
Fax: 704.334.3351
Contact: Jay M. Goldstein, Esq.
CHERRY HILL
Suite 300, LibertyView
457 Haddonfield Rood, P.O. Box 5459
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-2220
Tel: 856.910.5000 or 800.989.0499
Fax: 856.910.5075
Contact: Thomas McKay, III, Esq.
CHICAGO
Suite 1500, 222 South Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606-6000
Tel: 312.382.3100 or 877.992.6036
Fax: 312.382.8910
Contact: James I. Tarman, Esq.
DALLAS
2300 BankOne Center, 1717 Main Street
Dallas, TX 75201-7335
Tel: 214.462.3000 or 800.448.1207
Fax: 214.462.3299
Contact: Lawrence T. Bowman, Esq.
DENVER
707 17th Street, Suite 3100
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: 720.479.3900 or 877.467.0305
Fax: 720.479.3890
Contact: Brad W. Breslau, Esq.
HOUSTON
1 Houston Center
1221 McKinney, Suite 2900
Houston, TX 77010
Tel.: 832.214.3900 or 800.448.8502
Fax: 832.214.3905
Contact: Susan Noe, Esq.
SEATI’LE
Suite 5200, Washington Mutual Tower
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3071
Tel: 206.340.1000 or 800.423.1950
Fax: 206.621.8783
Contact: Daniel Theveny, Esq.
LAS VEGAS*
601 South Rancho, Suite 20
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Tel: 800.782.3366
Contact: Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
*Affiliated with the law offices of J. Goldberg,
and D. Grossman.
TRENTON
144-B West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
Tel: 609.989.8620
Contact: Jeffrey L. Nash, Esq.
LOS ANGELES
Suite 2850, 777 South Figueroo Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
Tel: 213.892.7900 or 800.563.1027
Fax: 213.892.7999
Contact: Mark S. Roth, Esq.
LONDON
Tower 42 Level 27, 25 Old Brood Street
London, UK
EC2N 1HQ
Tel: 011.44.20.7864.2000
Fax: 011.44.20.7864.2013
Contact: Richard F. Allen, Esq.
NEW YORK
16th Floor, 45 Broodway
New York, NY 10006-3792
Tel: 212.509.9400 or 800.437.7040
Fax: 212.509.9492
Contact: Michael J. Sommi, Esq.
NEWARK
Suite 1900, One Newark Center
1085 Raymond Boulevard
Newark, NJ 07102-5211
Tel: 973.286.1200 or 888.200.9521
Fax: 973.242.2121
Contact: Brian J. Coyle, Esq.
SAN DIEGO
Suite 1610, 501 West Broodway
San Diego, CA 92101-3536
Tel: 619.234.1700 or 800.782.3366
Fax: 619.234.7831
Contact: Joonn Selleck, Esq.
SAN FRANCISCO
Suite 2400, 425 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94104-2203
Tel: 415.617.6100 or 800.818.0165
Fax: 415.617.6101
Contact: Norman J. Ronneberg, Esq.
TORONTO
COZEN O’COI’@,IOR SUBROGATION SERVICES
Canada Trust Tower, BCE Place, 27th Floor
161 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario MSJ 2S1
Tel: 416.572.2127
Fax: 416.572.2201
Contact: Vincent McGuinness, Jr./Elaine M. Rinald
WASHINGTON, DC
Suite 500, 1667 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1605
Tel: 202.912.4800 or 800.540.1355
Fax: 202.912.4830
Contact: Matthew G. Ash, Esq.
WEST CONSHOHOCKEN
Suite 400, 200 Four Falls Corporate Center
P.O. BOx 800
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-0800
Tel: 610.941.5400 or 800.379.0695
Fax: 610.941.0711
Contact: Ross Weiss, Esq.
WICHITA
New England Financial Building
8415 E. 21 st Street North, Suite 220
Wichita, KS 67226
Tel: 316.609.3380
Fax: 316.634.3837
Contact: Kenneth R. Lang, Esq.
WILMINGTON
Suite 1400, Chase Manhattan Centre
1201 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801-1147
Tel: 302.295.2000 or 888.207.2440
Fax: 302.295.2013
Contact: Mark E. Felger, Esq.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I