Photo of James Fazio

James Fazio

Subscribe to James Fazio's Posts

James Fazio is special counsel in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's San Diego (Del Mar) office.

Contact:Read more about James Fazio

In an important decision on August 19, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc. affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of AMN, finding that the non-solicitation provision in the parties’ agreement was not an unreasonable restraint in violation of the federal antitrust law known as the “Sherman Act.”  Instead, the Court ruled that the non-solicitation provision was “reasonably necessary to the parties’ pro-competitive collaboration” and that Aya failed to show the non-solicitation provision had a “substantial anticompetitive effect.”[1]
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Denies Sherman Act Challenge To No-Poach Provision

You may be able to bring a misappropriation of trade secrets claim even if you do not actually own the misappropriated trade secret.  A growing number of federal cases indicate ownership of a trade secret may not be required in order for a plaintiff to sue for misappropriation; possession alone may be enough to confer standing.
Continue Reading Is Lawful Possession of a Trade Secret Enough for Standing to Sue for Misappropriation?

California Labor Code Section 925 prohibits employers from requiring employees who reside and work primarily in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to any provision that would require the employee to litigate outside California any claim arising in California, or that would deprive the employee of the benefit of California law with respect to any claim arising in California.  Under Section 925, any such provision is voidable by the employee and if the employee exercises her right to void the provision, then any such claim shall be adjudicated in California under California law.[1]
Continue Reading California Labor Code Section 925 and How Employers Can Avoid It

Whether under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) or under state law uniform trade secrets acts (“UTSA”), assessing monetary damages in trade secret misappropriation cases is rarely easy.  By definition, trade secrets lose their value once they lose their secrecy, but the lost value is often difficult to monetize.  Calculating damages for misappropriation should account for the lost value of the trade secret “asset,” but courts often lose sight of this calculus in fixing damages.  Lost profits, unjust enrichment, and reasonable royalties are common measures of damages in trade secret misappropriation cases, but there is another rarely considered measure of damages:  the diminution in value of a plaintiff’s trade secret caused by the misappropriation.  Damages for the diminution in value of a trade secret are a form of compensatory damages, though some courts will grant injunctive relief due to the difficulty in valuing the diminution of trade secrets.  Aerodynamics Inc. v. Caesars Entm’t Operating Co., No. 2:15-cv-01344-JAD-PAL, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129588, at *1 (D. Nev. Sep. 24, 2015).  DTSA (and most UTSA statutes), of course, recognize compensatory damages as a viable theory.  18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(B).  When courts have assessed trade-secret diminution theories, they have emphasized the critical importance of a quality expert and an almost asset-sale like economic valuation of the trade secrets.
Continue Reading Diminution in Value As A Measure of Damages for Trade Secret Misappropriation