The typical trade-secret case we see is anything but typical. Every company has unique circumstances that lead to these types of actions. Each individual has unique concerns during defense. The complex, interrelated web between employees, previous employers and competitors leads to a potentially lengthy and costly process.
As a firm that represents organizations and individuals alike in trade-secret cases, we tend to see and understand these issues from many different perspectives. For example, from the employee’s side, there are often claims about the validity of non-competition clauses in employment contracts. From a former employer’s side on the same issue, there may be some concern that the form employee was not honoring the agreement.
Both sides, regardless of their differences, have an imperative to make the most out of their protections under Pennsylvania law. This involves both the Pennsylvania uniform trade secret act and the ever-growing body of case law pertaining to the regulations. Although new situations constantly arise as business practices and technology advance, we find that many disputes have a context in previous cases in Pennsylvania or at other levels of the judicial system.
Litigation rarely serves both parties in a trade secret case, so we often act at the direction of our clients to first pursue alternative dispute resolution. If a case has a relatively predictable outcome in court, it is often advantageous for all parties involved to work out the details in mediation or arbitration rather than by commercial litigation in an open courtroom, with all of the possible delays and extraneous costs that could entail.
In general, our goal is to guide our clients through a complex, unique process by referencing analogous cases and providing a contextual understanding of cases and regulations. To learn more, please continue on to our main website.
