Monthly Archives: August 2012

Solicitor General’s Decision Not to Seek Supreme Court Review of the Ninth Circuit’s Decision in United States v. Nosal Makes Viability of Certain Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Claims Dependent on Where an Employer Can File Suit

Law360 reported yesterday that, with the Solicitor General’s decision not to seek Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Nosal, “whether an employer can bring [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act] claims against employees who steal company data in violation of computer usage policies depends on where the employer can file suit.”  I anticipated this would be the case back in April. … More

New Hampshire Federal Court Interprets the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act More Narrowly Than Massachusetts Federal Court and Dismisses Claims Based on Violations of Computer Use Restrictions

A recent case from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire highlights the split between the District of New Hampshire and the District of Massachusetts over the proper interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, in particular the phrase “exceeds authorized access.”  Under various provisions of the CFAA, an individual can be liable if certain conditions are met for exceeding his or her authorized access to information in a computer. … More

Suffolk Superior Court Rules Massachusetts General Hospital IP Policy is Enforceable Against a Urologist Who Created an Invention for Voice Training on His Own Time and at His Own Expense

Often an employer will require an employee to sign an invention assignment agreement before starting to work for the employer, which frequently states that any inventions that an employee creates while working for the employer shall become the employer’s property.  Last month, such an agreement was put to the test and survived.  Judge Peter Lauriat of the Suffolk County Superior Court Business Litigation Session ruled that an IP Policy agreement between a staff physician and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) was enforceable and was not an unreasonable restraint on trade. … More

Fraudulent Inducement Argument Rejected in Federal Noncompete Case (and the “Inevitable Disclosure” Doctrine is Applied)

In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Denise Casper rejected an argument by the defendant employee in a noncompete case that the employee was “fraudulently induced” by his former employer to sign a noncompete agreement.  The employee argued that the offer letter he received offering him stock options after he began working for the employer only stated that he would be required to sign an agreement with non-solicitation provisions in order to receive the stock options,… More