Technology Litigation & Disputes

Trade Secret Misappropriation

Trade secret litigation is now governed by two parallel bodies of law: the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836) , enacted in 2016, and the state Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), adopted in some form by 48 states including California (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq.) and Texas (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A). The DTSA allows claims in federal court without diversity jurisdiction, ex parte seizure orders for cases involving imminent destruction of evidence, and injunctive relief plus exemplary damages up to two times actual damages for willful misappropriation.

The threshold issue in most trade secret cases is whether the claimed secret actually qualifies — information must derive independent economic value from not being generally known, and the owner must have taken reasonable measures to keep it secret. In software disputes, this often turns on access controls, NDAs, employee onboarding procedures, and whether the alleged secret was disclosed in public documentation, patents, or open source code. We analyze both the strength of the trade secret claim and the strength of the misappropriation theory before recommending litigation.

• Source code and algorithm protection: Documenting and enforcing trade secret status for proprietary trading strategies, ML model architectures, and software source code — including the critical intersection with employment agreements, invention assignment clauses, and contractor IP ownership
• Employee departure and competitive threat response: Immediate legal response when a key employee departs to a competitor — preservation letters, forensic investigation support, and injunctive relief motions under the DTSA and applicable state law
• Non-compete and NDA enforcement: California prohibits non-competes for employees under Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 (with very limited exceptions); other states are more permissive. We advise on what is actually enforceable before you rely on a clause that won't hold up.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) is the primary federal statute for unauthorized computer access claims. It covers both criminal prosecution and civil suits, with civil liability available to any person who suffers damage or loss exceeding $5,000 in any one-year period from a violation. The statute prohibits accessing a computer "without authorization" or "exceeding authorized access" — a distinction the Supreme Court narrowed significantly in Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021), holding that an individual who is authorized to access a system does not "exceed authorized access" merely by accessing information for an improper purpose.

• Offensive CFAA claims: Pursuing civil actions against former employees who copied data before departure, competitors who accessed your systems without authorization, or scrapers violating platform terms of service (a contested area post-Van Buren and hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn)
• CFAA defense: Representing defendants in civil and criminal CFAA matters — particularly security researchers, former employees, and software developers whose access patterns are alleged to be unauthorized
• Data breach liability: CFAA intersects with state breach notification laws (California's CCPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.80 et seq.; Texas Identity Theft Enforcement and Protection Act) and creates both regulatory exposure and private litigation risk following unauthorized system access

Patent, Copyright, and DMCA Litigation

Patent Infringement

Patent infringement claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271 arise when a product or process practices each limitation of a valid patent claim. Software patent litigation involves claim construction disputes (what the patent actually covers), invalidity arguments under § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness), and increasingly, patent eligibility challenges under § 101 following Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Damages under § 284 are "in no event less than a reasonable royalty" — but lost profits and price erosion theories can produce substantially higher awards when the patent owner can establish market position.

Copyright and the DMCA

Copyright infringement in software contexts — copying source code, training data disputes, API structure copying, and UI/UX reproduction — is governed by 17 U.S.C. § 501 . The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.) adds anti-circumvention liability for bypassing technological protection measures, which has become increasingly relevant as platforms use access controls to restrict competitors and researchers. We handle DMCA takedown and counter-notice procedures, Section 512 safe harbor analysis for platforms, and both offensive and defensive copyright litigation for software companies.

• Software licensing disputes: Breach of SaaS agreements, open source license compliance (GPL, AGPL copyleft triggers, MIT/Apache compatibility), and enterprise license scope disputes — areas where the legal analysis requires understanding what the software actually does
• AI training data and model output disputes: The current wave of litigation over whether training large language models on copyrighted text constitutes infringement, and what fair use analysis applies — an active and rapidly evolving area of law
• Expert witness services: Providing technical expert testimony on software architecture, source code similarity, industry standards of care, and the feasibility of claimed technical features — in litigation and arbitration proceedings