Available Remedies in Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Cases


CLE credits earned: 1 General Credit (WA 1 Law and Legal)

When a current or former employee or business partner misappropriates trade secrets or breaches a restrictive covenant agreement, such as a noncompetition, non-solicitation, or nondisclosure agreement, the aggrieved party may often, depending on the jurisdiction, pursue injunctive relief and damages against the employee or business partner. Quantifying the damages to the business resulting from the breach of covenant can be challenging. The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 provides additional avenues for seeking injunctive relief and damages for trade secret theft, as do individual state laws. Courts may double damages and award attorneys’ fees in the event of willful and malicious appropriation of trade secrets. Employers can also sometimes pursue damages from a former employee’s new employer for interference with the departing employee’s restrictive covenants. Companies face additional challenges when attempting to enforce restrictive covenants when some or all of the actionable conduct takes place outside the U.S. Listen as our authoritative panel discusses strategies and best practices for employers to pursue injunctive relief and damages against a current or former employee and/or his new employer following a trade-secret misappropriation, or a breach of a covenant not to compete, solicit, or disclose confidential information. Our panel will offer drafting strategies to give companies the most robust platform for enforcing their contractual and fiduciary rights.

Key topics to be discussed:

• What types of relief may companies pursue when a current or former employee or business partner breaches a restrictive covenant?
• How does state law and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 address damages and injunctive relief for trade secret misappropriation?
• What are the methodologies to establish damages?
• When can and should an employer go after a former employee’s new employer for damages for breach of a restrictive covenant?
• How can companies draft enforceable covenants to maximize potential damages and equitable remedies?

Date / Time: November 17, 2020

•   1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Eastern
•   12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Central
•   11:00 am – 12:00 pm Mountain
•   10:00 am – 11:00 am Pacific

Choose a format:

•   Live Video Broadcast/Re-Broadcast: Watch Program “live” in real-time, must sign-in and watch program on date and time set above. May ask questions during presentation via chat box. Qualifies for “live” CLE credit.
•   On-Demand Video: Access CLE 24/7 via on-demand library and watch program anytime. Qualifies for self-study CLE credit. On-demand versions are made available 5 business days after the original recording date and are view-able for up to one year.

Select your state to see if this class is approved for CLE credit.

Choose the format you want.


Original Broadcast Date: November 17, 2020

Jesse Coleman

Jesse Coleman has worked for nearly a decade in the health care industry, assisting clients with medical staff and peer review matters, along with breach of contract and general business tort litigation. He has handled numerous trade secret and noncompete matters for clients across the business spectrum from hospitality to telecommunications.

Jesse has represented hospitals and insurance companies in antitrust, business torts, and breach of contract lawsuits, bringing matters to successful settlement or favorable trial verdicts. He has further successfully litigated multiple trade secret and noncompete matters, assisting clients in protecting their trade secrets, obtaining injunctive relief, and defending against claims of misappropriation.
To enhance and optimize the legal services he and his teams provide to clients, Jesse adopts and customizes technological solutions. These include industry-standard tools, as well as key in-house solutions such as Seyfarth Link, to streamline processes and drive down costs.

Jesse enjoys working with a team of dedicated attorneys and staff in meeting client needs. He embraces Seyfarth’s culture of providing cutting-edge, tech-assisted legal services in the fast-paced, constantly evolving legal landscape that his clients face.
Erik Weibust

Many of the world’s leading pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device, technology, financial services, staffing, and insurance companies look to Erik Weibust for thoughtful and practical advice concerning how best to protect these assets from misappropriation by former employees, ex-business partners, competitors, and hostile actors in the US and abroad, and to avoid liability when hiring from competitors. When necessary, clients rely on Erik for aggressive representation in litigation, where he has won substantial victories in court and at the negotiating table, including broad-reaching injunctive relief and multimillion-dollar payouts, and defeating claims of trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of restrictive covenant agreements.

In addition to his trade secret and restrictive covenant practice, Erik regularly collaborates with attorneys across the firm to represent clients in commercial litigation matters, including franchise, distribution, and real estate disputes, to name a few. Similarly, clients appreciate that, by working with Erik, they can leverage Seyfarth’s national platform and full service offering to obtain practical advice in other areas of law in which he does not practice, knowing that Erik will manage the relationship with unparalleled transparency, accountability, responsiveness, and efficiency.

Erik’s national litigation practice provides him with a unique and diverse perspective on how courts and arbitrators, in a variety of jurisdictions, analyze relevant issues, keeping him abreast of cutting-edge legal arguments, industry trends, and litigation strategies that he brings to bear in all of his representations. Erik regularly publishes articles and speaks locally and nationally about trade secret and restrictive covenant law, and he has been quoted on these topics in publications such as the Washington Post and Law360.

Erik has substantial case management experience from the early stages of litigation through the appeals process, including investigations, discovery, mediation, and trial and arbitration, as well as litigation avoidance. He manages client expectations and budgets practically and with transparency and accountability, using Seyfarth’s broad suite of cutting-edge technology and project management capabilities.

In 2017, Erik was named co-chair of Seyfarth Shaw’s Boston office Litigation department. Prior to joining the firm, Erik served as a law clerk to the Honorable Peter W. Hall of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Accreditation Policy
myLawCLE seeks accreditation for all programs in all states except, ME, VA, and WV. Each attending attorney/paralegal will receive a certificate of completion following the close of the CLE program as proof of attendance. In required states, myLawCLE records attorney/paralegals attendance, in all other states attorney/paralegal is provided with the approved CLE certificate to submit to their state bar or governing association.

    Automatic MCLE Approvals

All myLawCLE CLE programs are accredited automatically either directly or via reciprocity in the following states: AK, AR, CA, CT, FL, HI, ME, MO, MT, ND, NM, NJ, NY and VT. (AZ does not approve CLE programs, but accepts our certificates for CLE credit.)

    Live Video Broadcasts

Live video broadcasts are new live CLE programs being streamed and recorded for the first time. All of these programs qualify for “Live” CLE credit in all states except NV, OH, MS, IN, UT, PA, GA, and LA —these states require in-person attendance to qualify for “Live” CLE credit.

    “Live” Re-Broadcasts

“Live” Re-broadcasts are replays of previously recorded CLE programs, set on a specific date and time and where the original presenting speakers calls in live at the end of the event to answer questions. This “live” element allows for “live” Re-broadcast CLEs to qualify for “Live” CLE credits in most states. [The following states DO NOT allow for “live” CLE credits on re-broadcast CLEs: NV, OH, MS, IN, UT, PA, GA, and LA]

Many states allow for credit to be granted on a 1:1 reciprocal basis for courses approved in another mandatory CLE jurisdiction state. This is known as a reciprocity provision and includes the following states: AK, AR, HI, CT, FL, ME, MO, MT, ND, NM, NJ, and NY. myLawCLE does not seek direct accreditation of live webinars or teleconferences in these states.