quinn emanuel
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp | business litigation report
INSIDE
Enforceability of Settlement
Terms in California Courts
Page 4
Practice Area Updates:
Securities and Structured
Finance Litigation Update
Page 6
Bankruptcy and
Restructuring Update
Page 7
Copyright Litigation Update
Page 9
Patent and Antitrust Victory
Against 3M and Other
Victories
Page 10
Attorney Advertising
July 2014
los angeles | new york | san francisco | silicon valley | chicago | washington, d.c. | houston | tokyo | london | mannheim | hamburg | munich | paris | moscow | hong kong | sydney | brussels
(continued on page 2)
The Uniform Trade Secrets Act: Differences from the Common Law and from
State to State
Recently, Texas adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act
(“UTSA” or “the Act”), with some minor modications,
S.B. 953, 83rd Leg., Reg. Sess., § 4 (Tex. 2013),
becoming the 47th State (plus Washington, D.C. and
Puerto Rico) to do so. Massachusetts, North Carolina,
and New York are the remaining holdouts, and a bill to
adopt the Act is pending in the Massachusetts House
of Representatives. e UTSA, which was promulgated
in 1979, was signicantly amended in 1985 and has
been steadily adopted by the States since then. is
article examines some of the Act’s signicant deviations
from the common law, particularly the common law
of New York, which is based in signicant measure
on the Restatement (ird) of Unfair Competition.
Additionally, since States can (and often do) make
changes to the Act when they enact it, this article
discusses dierences among certain major jurisdictions
that have adopted some form of the UTSA, including
California, Illinois, and Texas, as well as variations in
interpretation of the UTSA among the courts of those
States.
I. e UTSA’s Departure from the Common Law
e rst major dierence between the Act and the
common law lies in the denition of a “trade secret.”
New York case law denes a trade secret as any
Quinn Emanuel Receives Top Rankings in
Chambers USA 2014
e rm and its partners have once again received top rankings from Chambers USA.
For 2014, the rm and its partners were recognized as market leaders in the areas of
Intellectual Property, General Commercial Litigation, Securities Litigation, White-
Collar Crime & Government Investigations Litigation, Media & Entertainment
Litigation, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, International Arbitration, Appellate Law, and
International Trade: Intellectual Property. Additionally, the rm made its debut on the
list for Products Liability & Mass Torts. e rm’s Products Liability group was also
recognized earlier this year as Chambers USA Product Liability Practice Group of the Year
for 2014.
Q
Susan Estrich and Diane Doolittle Named Top Women Lawyers
by the
Daily Journal
Partners Susan Estrich and Diane Doolittle were recently named 2014 Top Women
Lawyers by the Daily Journal. e feature recognizes the female attorneys in California
whose work has made a signicant impact on the legal eld.
Ms. Estrich was recognized in particular for her work representing Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd., Mattel Inc., Marvell Technology Group Ltd., and Marvell
Semiconductor Inc. Ms. Doolittle, Co-Chair of the rm’s national trial practice group,
was recognized for her work on behalf of Pzer Inc.
Q
Charles Verhoeven Named a Top IP Lawyer by the
Daily
Journal
San Francisco partner Charles Verhoeven was named a Top IP Lawyer by the Daily
Journal. e annual list consists of leading intellectual property litigators and portfolio
managers. Mr. Verhoeven is recognized in particular for his work on behalf of Google
Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. against Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp., and for
his work on behalf of Motorola Mobility Inc. in Microsoft Corp. v. International Trade
Commission et al.
Q
