Tag Archives: Non-compete clause

Are We Headed for a Landmark Florida Supreme Court Non-Compete Case?

January 6, 2016 By in Case Summary, Florida Non-Compete Lawyer, Noncompete Tags: , , , , 2 Comments

A few months ago, I wrote about a Florida appellate case holding that referral sources qualify as legitimate business interests under Florida’s restrictive covenant statute (Section 542.335, Fla. Stat.). On New Year’s Eve, a different Florida appellate court disagreed, setting up a possible appeal to Florida’s Supreme Court.

In Hiles v. Americare Home Therapy, Inc., Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeals overturned in part a temporary injunction entered against the former employee of a home healthcare company, who had allegedly violated a non-compete agreement. (The case I discussed in my earlier post also involved the home healthcare industry.) The injunction was based on the company’s claimed need to prevent the former employee from soliciting referral sources.

Under the Florida statue, a restrictive covenant is only enforceable if supported by a legitimate business interest. Here, the appellate court held that referral sources are not legitimate business interests.

The court relied on one of the legitimate business interests listed in the statute: “substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, or clients.” Since referral sources are not specific customers or potential customers, this court found that they are not legitimate business interests.

This is faulty logic, since the statute makes clear that the list of legitimate business interests in non-exclusive: “The term ‘legitimate business interest’ includes, but is not limited to” the enumerated items, including substantial relationships with customers.

In the home healthcare industry, it certainly sounds like referral sources are very important to business success. This is likely the case in a number of industries, where business is primarily generated through referral sources. In those industries, a company should be able to protect its referral sources through restrictive covenants.

Given the appellate-court split, there is at least a chance that the Florida Supreme Court will address this issue. If it does, the case could have far-reaching effects. The Florida Supreme Court could take this opportunity to address the definition of “legitimate business interest” under the statute, and clarify what types of legitimate business interests beyond those listed in the statute justify restrictive covenants. This could dramatically alter the way Florida treats restrictive covenants. Stay tuned.

Shark Tank and College Football Non-Competes

December 17, 2015 By in Florida Non-Compete Lawyer, Noncompete, Trade Secrets In the News, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Two recent stories show why all companies should at least consider implementing non-compete agreements or other restrictive covenants.

First, here’s a link to a short interview with Shark Tank’s Robert Herjavec, talking about his first company. Unbeknown to Robert, his sales manager had set up a side business, to which he funneled half of Robert’s customers. Robert only found out because another employee broke down and told him during her exit interview.

Robert finishes the interview with good advice: “The minute you hire the first employee, you have to be careful.”

We don’t know if the sales manager had signed a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement. Such an agreement could have given Robert far better legal options.

Also, Robert trusted that his employees would be loyal. While it’s obviously good to trust your employees, it’s far better to trust and also have them sign appropriate restrictive covenants.

I also read about how an assistant coach of the Arkansas Razorbacks football team left for the University of Georgia. Bret Bielema, Arkansas’ head coach, was not happy. Apparently, his recently hired coaches signed non-compete agreements that prohibited them for coaching for other SEC schools. But the coach who had left had been hired earlier, and he did not have a non-compete.

Of course, Arkansas should have had its coaches sign non-competes from the outset. And once they decided to require new coaches to sign one, they should have at least attempted to have the older coaches sign as well.

These stories show how non-compete agreements can have value across diverse industries. It’s worth speaking with an attorney to figure out whether your company can benefit from implementing restrictive covenants, or improving existing agreements.

 

Florida Loves Non-Compete Agreements

December 3, 2015 By in Advice, Case Summary, Noncompete, Trade secrets, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Florida’s restrictive-covenant statute, Section 542.335, is one of the most employer-friendly in the country. A recent case from Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, Transunion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. Reilly, shows how this statute favors an employer trying to enforce a restrictive covenant against a former employee. A copy of the opinion can be downloaded below.

This opinion is short on facts, but the plaintiff sued the defendant for violating a non-compete agreement and sought a temporary injunction. At the injunction hearing, the trial court ruled in the defendant’s favor after the plaintiff finished its case in chief, before the defendant put on any evidence.

The appellate court reversed. First, it looked at the likelihood of irreparable injury, citing the statute’s presumption of irreparable injury that arises when the plaintiff shows a violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant. Here, the appellate court reversed because the defendant did not present evidence:

As the trial court’s ruling was issued before Reilly presented any evidence, Reilly could not have met his burden of presenting evidence overcoming the presumption.

This doesn’t sound right. A defendant should have the right to rebut this presumption simply by cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses. That’s what the trial court apparently thought happened here. But the presumption so strongly favors the plaintiff that this appellate court was unwilling to allow the defendant to rebut it without putting on affirmative evidence.

The trial court also concluded that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law. But the appellate court reversed this finding, noting that even when a plaintiff has suffered actual money damages,

the continued breach of a non-compete agreement threatens a former employer’s goodwill and relationships with its customers, and nothing short of an injunction would prevent this loss.

This finding essentially eliminates the adequate-remedy-at-law prong of the injunction analysis in restrictive-covenant cases.

Finally, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. On this point, the appellate court relied on the trial court’s “implied finding” that the defendant violated a restrictive covenant. So once a court finds that the defendant breached, the plaintiff has automatically shown a substantial likelihood of success.

This case shows how Florida’s restrictive-covenant statute provides employers with the upper hand in litigation. As a result, these agreements are a very effective tool for protecting proprietary information and trade secrets. All Florida companies should consult with an attorney to determine whether to implement these types of agreements.

Transunion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. Reilly

“Just Doin Blow and Erasing Evidence”

November 20, 2015 By in Case Summary, Noncompete, Trade secrets, Trade Secrets In the News, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

As the Defend Trade Secrets Act—which would create a federal cause of action for trade-secrets theft—makes its way through Congress, critics have focused on the proposed statute’s ex parte seizure provision. In a nutshell, the statute would allow for the entry of ex parte orders to seize specifically identified repositories of evidence that are at risk of destruction.

I’ve responded to these criticisms multiple times before (see here, here, and here). The statutory protections (e.g., the party subject to the order is entitled to a hearing within 7 days) combined with federal judges’ reluctance to issue ex parte orders are, in my view, sufficient to prevent abuse.

Meanwhile, the threat of evidence destruction is real. A recent case shows how far defendants can go to allegedly destroy evidence of trade-secrets theft.

As described in Law360, a radio-controlled-vehicle company sued several former employees for violating restrictive covenants and misappropriating trade secrets, among other claims. The plaintiff filed a motion seeking sanctions against the defendants for destroying evidence.

According to the plaintiff, the defendants destroyed “scores of emails, texts, and documents that described their scheme to start at least one rival toy car and boat business.”

One of the defendants—who sounds like a real winner—apparently sent a text message talking about how he expected to get served with the complaint, saying “That’s what I’m trying to deal with now so I can’t go out, just doin blow and erasing evidence.”

In misappropriation cases, the evidence is almost always in electronic form. And it’s way too easy for defendants to destroy this evidence. While a plaintiff could seek sanctions (as the plaintiff here is seeking against the guy “doin blow”), a plaintiff would almost always rather have the actual smoking gun proving misappropriation.

The ex parte seizure provision is a powerful tool that may allow companies to preserve critical evidence.

Trade Secrets Best Practices: Exit Interviews

January 12, 2015 By in Advice, Noncompete, Trade secrets, Trade Secrets Best Practices Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

This is the next in a series of posts addressing best practices for protecting trade secrets and proprietary information. Today’s topic: exit interviews, which can be a powerful tool to avoid, or at least anticipate, unwanted disclosure.

An exit interview is exactly what it sounds like. When an employee is leaving your company, you have someone meet with him to discuss various aspects of his departure. There are several goals: remind the employee of his legal obligations; make sure he has returned all company information, documents, and devices; and gather intelligence about his next job to determine the risk of unwanted disclosure.

The key is to have a set process that is automatically followed each time an employee leaves. Depending on the size and structure of your company, a single person or department should be responsible for conducting the interviews. That person should work from a checklist that includes all topics that must be discussed. To develop this process, consult with an attorney who specializes in trade-secrets issues who can help customize it to fit your company’s needs.

The checklist should include, at a minimum, the following:

Review of restrictive covenants and related agreements: Give the employee copies of any agreements he signed and remind him of specific noncompete, nonsolicitation, nondisclosure, and related obligations.

Review of non-contractual legal obligations: Remind the employee of his ongoing legal obligations to, for example, keep certain information confidential. The applicable laws vary state-by-state, so make sure to consult with an attorney familiar with your state’s laws.

Review inventory of all company devices: Hopefully, you are keeping an inventory of all company devices issued to the employee. Go through this inventory and make sure he has returned all of these devices.

Company information and documents: Ask whether the employee has any hard-copy documents or electronically stored information on his personal computer, devices, and storage medium. If he does, give a set date for him to return or destroy the documents/information.

Sign acknowledgment: Have the employee sign an acknowledgment form that confirms he is aware of his legal obligations, has returned all company devices, and returned or destroyed all company documents/information.

Gather information: Ask the employee where he will be working next, and in what capacity. Also make sure you have the employee’s updated contact information.

Additionally, prior to the interview, you should work with your IT department to see if the departing employee recently accessed or used trade-secret information, particularly in an out-of-the-ordinary manner. If so, consult with an attorney, since it may be advisable to address this issue with the employee during the exit interview.

Often, this process will allow you to handicap the risk that the departing employee will illegally use your trade secrets and proprietary information. For example, be wary of an employee who refuses to tell you where he will be working next. Or an employee who refuses to attend the exit interview. In cases where you suspect something is amiss, consult with an attorney right away, since time is of the essence in these cases.

Again, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to exit interviews. Speak with with an attorney to develop the process that best fits your company’s needs.

Best Practices for Protecting Trade Secrets: Categories of Employee Contracts

November 7, 2014 By in Advice, Noncompete, Trade secrets, Trade Secrets Best Practices Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

This is the first in a series of posts addressing best practices for protecting trade secrets. I’m starting with employee/independent contractor contracts, which are one of the most important and effective ways to protect proprietary information.

Contracts are critical for multiple reasons. First, they inform your employees of their legal responsibilities. Second, it’s generally easier to prosecute a breach-of-contract claim instead of relying solely on a trade-secrets misappropriation claim. Third, a competitor that hires your former employee may be more likely to cut ties with that employee when presented with a cease-and-desist letter attaching a contract. Finally, requiring these types of agreements can help you win a misappropriation case, since their existence bolsters the argument that you reasonably protected your trade secrets (a prerequisite to establishing a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act).

There are three general categories of contractual protections: confidentiality/nondisclosure, nonsolicitation, and noncompete. Remember that the law applicable to these contracts varies widely from state-to-state, so you need to consult with an attorney who can make sure your agreements comply with and will be enforced under the applicable law.

Confidentiality/NDA

This is the lowest level of contractual protection. It’s also the easiest to implement, since employees are less likely to push back when asked to sign a NDA. From a best-practices perspective, it’s worth at least considering whether to require that all employees sign a NDA. Even low-level employees may have access to some proprietary information. The trick is drafting the language in a way that best defines what precisely needs to be kept confidential. In particular, you need to decide whether to define “confidential information” broadly vs. specifically. Each comes with benefits and risks. Speak with a lawyer who can learn about your unique situation to determine what language best suits your business.

Nonsolicitation Agreements

A nonsolicitation agreement prohibits your employee from soliciting some or all of your current or prospective customers and/or employees once she leaves your company, for a certain period of time. These contracts offer an intermediate level protection, more than a NDA but not as much as a noncompete. It’s best to have all employees with access to proprietary customer information, or who have relationships with prospective/actual customers, sign a nonsolicitation agreement. Again, consult with an attorney who can help craft the scope of the restrictions to your company, based on the applicable law.

Noncompete Agreements

These agreements offer the highest level of protection, since they prohibit your employee from working for your competitors or in your industry, within a certain area and for a certain amount of time. Recently, there has been media coverage of corporate overuse of noncompete agreements. For example, Jimmy Johns took a lot of heat for having its sandwich makers sign noncompete agreements. This type of practice can turn off a judge.

There’s no question that noncompete agreements can be a powerful tool for protecting your proprietary information. But you should consider only requiring that key employees sign a noncompete agreement. The other contracts above may be sufficient to protect against misappropriation by lower-level employees.

You also need to think about the noncompete’s temporal and geographic scope. Depending on the law in your state, an overbroad agreement may not be enforceable. In Florida, where judges are required to narrow an overbroad agreement, I’ve seen judges soured towards employers that overreached when drafting the agreement. Generally, it’s best to limit the agreement the area in which you can prove you compete. An attorney can work with you to determine the proper scope.

Procedure

Deciding to require some or all of the above agreements, and having an attorney draft the agreements, is only the first step. Next, you need to make sure the agreements are actually signed and dated. Then, you need to make sure the signed agreements are properly maintained. You would not believe how often companies forget to have an employee sign or date the agreement. Or how often I’ve seen a company struggle to find the signed agreement when it became necessary to enforce it.

The key is to develop a protocol that can be repeated for each new employee. When the decision is made to hire a new employee, a designated person should be responsible for creating a checklist of all documents that she needs to sign. Of course, the checklist may be different for each employee. Either the person who creates the checklist or another designated person needs to be responsible for making sure all items on the list are actually completed. I recommend including on the checklist the signing, dating, and filing of all required contracts. The responsible person should sign the checklist once everything has been completed, and the checklist should be filed along with the signed documents.

If the contracts are to be signed electronically, your IT people need to set up the software so it will not allow a signature unless all mandatory clickwrap “boxes” are checked. If you are old school and the contracts are manually signed, I recommend keeping an electronic copy along with the original.

In future posts, I’ll discuss specific contractual provisions that should be included in these agreements, as well as best practices for contractual protections when dealing with third parties, like vendors, consultants, and joint-venture partners.

 

Do Noncompetes Stifle or Encourage Innovation? Should you care?

June 9, 2014 By in Noncompete, Trade secrets, Trade Secrets In the News Tags: , , , , , , , , 4 Comments

The New York Times published an article yesterday discussing the increased use of noncompete agreements in nontraditional industries. The article starts by talking about a 19-year-old college student who had a job offer to work as a summer-camp counselor withdrawn as a result of a noncompete agreement she signed at another camp:

Colette Buser couldn’t understand why a summer camp withdrew its offer for her to work there this year.

After all, the 19-year-old college student had worked as a counselor the three previous summers at a nearby Linx-branded camp in Wellesley, Mass. But the company balked at hiring her because it feared that Linx would sue to enforce a noncompete clause tucked into Ms. Buser’s 2013 summer employment contract.

The article also talks about a lawn-maintenance person, an entry-level social-media marketer,  and a hairdresser, all of whom had to sign restrictive covenants.

As more and more employers require restrictive covenants, there has been increased push-back. Against the backdrop of Massachusetts’ proposed ban on noncompetes, the article goes on to discuss arguments for and against employee restrictive covenants. Some argue that noncompetes stifle innovation:

“Noncompetes are a dampener on innovation and economic development,” said Paul Maeder, co-founder and general partner of Highland Capital Partners, a venture capital firm with offices in both Boston and Silicon Valley. “They result in a lot of stillbirths of entrepreneurship — someone who wants to start a company, but can’t because of a noncompete.”

Employers argue that the opposite is true:

“Noncompetes reduce the potential for poaching,” said Mr. Hazen, whose company makes scratch lottery tickets and special packaging. “We consider them an important way to protect our business. As an entrepreneur who invests a lot of money in equipment, in intellectual property and in people, I’m worried about losing these people we’ve invested in.”

There has always been a dispute about restrictive covenants’ effect on macro-level economic health. From my perspective, I am more concerned about using restrictive covenants to my clients’ benefit, as opposed to resolving this dispute; the policy implications of restrictive-covenant law are irrelevant to companies trying to protect their proprietary information. But the article leaves out a real-world benefit: increased certainty for employers and employees.

When permitted to use restrictive covenants, employers and employees have a better understanding of what will happen when the employer/employee relationship terminates. Employers can more comfortably share proprietary information with their employees, knowing that the restrictive covenants protect the employers’ interests. And employees know the precise limitations on their future employment, which can better inform their employment-related decisions.

Regardless, as I’ve discussed over and over, companies seeking to protect their proprietary information need to consider whether to require restrictive covenants. As long as the applicable jurisdiction permits them, restrictive covenants are often a company’s most powerful weapon to prevent unwanted disclosure.

Novel Legal Strategy Deflates Employer’s Trade-Secrets Case

April 24, 2014 By in Case Summary, Noncompete, Trade secrets Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Recently, in Putters v. Rmax Operating, LLC, 2014 WL 1466902 (N.D. Ga. April 15, 2014) (opinion linked below), the court dismissed a counterclaim for trade-secrets misappropriation, brought in response to a declaratory judgment action filed by the defendant’s former employee. When I first read this opinion, I thought that the defendant did not move fast enough, thereby allowing the plaintiff to select the forum. When I dug further, however, I found out I was wrong.

In this case, the defendant is a Texas company that manufacturers insulation materials. The plaintiff worked for the defendant for 26 years in Georgia as a sales manager, and had access to the defendant’s confidential information. After the plaintiff left the defendant to work for a competitor, the defendant discovered that the plaintiff “had downloaded documents containing proprietary and confidential information to an external hard drive.”

While not clear from this opinion, the complaint gives the back story. A copy is linked below. The defendant originally filed suit in Texas state court and obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order prohibiting the plaintiff from working for his new employer.

After that, the plaintiff made an interesting legal maneuver. He filed this lawsuit in Georgia state court, seeking a declaration that he is permitted to continue working for his new employer, and an injunction prohibiting the defendant from prosecuting the Texas action, since Texas courts did not have personal jurisdiction over him.

This maneuver worked. The case (after being removed to federal court) is proceeding in Georgia federal court, where the court dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim and denied the defendant’s request for a TRO.

Normally, when a defendant believes that there is no personal jurisdiction over him, he will simply litigate that issue in front of the court where the plaintiff filed the lawsuit. Here, the employee took an entirely different course and successfully redirected the litigation to a different forum. And he was able to get the case in front of a judge with much more favorable views of his case.

Takeaway: Companies should be wary of personal-jurisdiction issues when filing trade-secrets lawsuits. The last thing you want is to be bogged down in a personal jurisdiction fight before the court will even hear a temporary injunction motion. Or, even worse, you could end up like the employer in this case, who spent time and money getting a TRO, only to be whisked away to a Georgia court with a very different view of the employer’s arguments.

Also, had this company simply had its employees sign restrictive covenants (including a venue and jurisdiction clause), they would be in a far better legal position.

Order

Complaint

Trade-Secrets Interview: Pamela Passman of CREATe.org

March 10, 2014 By in Trade secrets, Trade Secrets In the News, Trade-Secrets Interview Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Protecting Trade Secrets is launching a new regular feature, where we will interview people of interest in the trade-secrets world. Starting with Pamela Passman, President and CEO of CREATe.org. “The Center for Responsible Enterprise And Trade (CREATe.org) is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping companies and their suppliers and business partners reduce corruption and IP theft in the forms of counterfeiting, piracy and trade secret theft.”

Recently, I published a blog post discussing a new trade-secrets report published by CREATe.org. I asked Ms. Passman questions about CREATe.org and the report. I’ll be running the interview in two parts. Check back later this week for part 2.

PamelaPassman CREATe org sm (3)Protecting Trade Secrets: Let’s start with some background on CREATe.org. When was it created? By whom? Why? What are its primary activities?

Pamela Passman: While at Microsoft, as Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Global Corporate and Regulatory Affairs, I led  regulatory compliance work on a range of issues in more than 100 countries. For nearly six years I also headed Legal and Corporate Affairs in Asia, based in Tokyo, with a focus on Japan, Korea and the People’s Republic of China.

My collective experience—in compliance, corporate leadership, public policy and emerging markets—led me to consider a new approach to two critical issues for companies around the world: intellectual property (IP) protection and anti-corruption.

The genesis for the idea of CREATe.org was based in recognizing that companies such as Microsoft, GE, P&G and many others have spent years developing robust management systems and best practices to appropriately manage and use IP and to prevent corruption. Equally important, was a belief that the private sector can play a powerful role in driving responsible business practices and bridging regulatory gaps where adequate laws do not exist or enforcement is weak.

From these perspectives, CREATe.org was founded in October 2011. As a non-profit organization, CREATe.org works across industries and geographies with a mission to bring leading practices in IP protection and anti-corruption to all companies. The organization works to provide cost-effective and practical assessments, benchmarking, tools and step-by-step guidance for companies, particularly those that lack a track record of developing and implementing compliance programs.

PTS: Does CREATe.org have any policy objectives (e.g., lobbying for legislation, regulations)?

PP: CREATe.org is focused on ways the private sector can more effectively address the issues of IP protection and anti-corruption. We do this by helping companies around the world improve practices and put systems in place to mitigate the risks of IP theft and corruption. CREATe.org is not a lobbying organization.

PTS: What precipitated the “Economic Impact of Trade Secret Theft” report?

PP: In the organization’s first two years, our team gathered insights from companies around the world, gave countless presentations and partnered with think tanks, academics and experts on IP protection and anti-corruption. The challenge of trade-secret theft was a topic that surfaced throughout these exchanges. Companies are finding it increasingly difficult to protect trade secrets, both within companies and among third-parties.

PTS: Let’s turn to some of the details of the report. Your framework to safeguard trade secrets involves bringing key stakeholders into the process. Often, senior executives can be reluctant to participate in such a process. Any suggestions for building enthusiasm among senior executives?

PP: Most senior executives appreciate that trade secrets are key to the company’s value, ability to innovate and compete. For many, the question is where to start? Our intent was to break down a comprehensive approach into steps and provide tools for making the process practical. Providing a clear path and the benefits of safeguarding trade secrets can be helpful for building support internally.

PTS: Similarly, your report acknowledges that protecting trade secrets can require actions that may cut against other company priorities, such as maximizing productivity. For example, increased security measures may result in it taking longer for employees to access documents they need to perform their jobs. Any suggestions for building a corporate culture that values protecting trade secrets on par with other financial priorities?

PP: Each company must determine the correct level of actions appropriate for their corporate culture and then invest in training and awareness campaigns to help educate employees on the importance of protecting company trade secrets. In our work in Asia, for example, we see companies with increasing focus on building awareness within their employee base and key third parties – including  IP protection campaigns that use a variety of media to promote good practices, from posters in the company cafeteria to e-learning and screen savers for desktop computers.

_______________________________

Later this week, Ms. Passman responds to my two critiques of the report and discusses CREATe.org’s next steps.

CREATe.org/PwC Report Makes the Case for Investing in Trade-Secret Protections

February 27, 2014 By in Noncompete, Trade secrets, Trade Secrets In the News Tags: , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

“Historically, . . . [trade secret protections] have been viewed as a cost, not an investment.” CREATe.org and PwC recently released a report titled “Economic Impact of Trade Secret Theft: A framework for companies to safeguard trade secrets and mitigate potential threats.” If you read this blog, you should read the report.

Next week, I will be interviewing for this blog one of CREATe.org’s principals responsible for the report. (CREATe.org is a non-profit “dedicated to helping companies and their suppliers and business partners reduce counterfeiting, piracy, trade secret theft and corruption.”)

The report seeks to change the mentality described in the above quote. It starts by estimating the cost of trade-secret theft, and concludes (based on a review of various proxies for trade-secret theft) that economic losses based on trade-secret theft amount to between 1 and 3 percent of GDP. Hopefully, numbers like this draw greater attention to the real risks companies face.

It next outlines of categories of “threat actors” — those who seek to steal trade secrets. These include nation states, malicious insiders (including current and former employees, third-party consultants, and suppliers), competitors, transnational organized crime, and hacktivists (who try to use corporate information for political or social purposes).

Regarding employees, the report notes that “cultural and technological factors may heighten the insider threat in coming years . . . The nature of U.S. employees’ loyalties to their employers is changing because of the much higher rate of lifetime job changes.” The report also identifies “bring your own device” policies as an increased risk.

The report presents a framework for companies to identify and evaluate their trade secrets, audit their current protections, and make value-based improvements to these protections based on measuring ROI. This approach involves key stakeholders, educates them about the risks of trade-secret theft, and helps make the business case for protections.

While I have some issues with the framework (which, if handled improperly, could create documents that may undermine litigation efforts, and would likely need to be altered for many small mid-sized businesses), it provides a comprehensive, incredibly useful starting point and roadmap.

Next week, I’ll examine the report in greater depth when I interview CREATe.org.