A recent Opinion issued by the Arizona Supreme Court highlights a noteworthy dichotomy in the way various states interpret the pre-emptive effect of their respective Uniform Trade Secrets Acts (“UTSA”). Forty-eight states have enacted some form of the UTSA, which aims to codify and harmonize standards and remedies regarding misappropriation of trade secrets that had emerged in common law and which differed from state to state. Only New York and Massachusetts have not enacted some form of the UTSA.
One important feature of the UTSA is its pre-emptive effect upon state common law ...
Recent Updates
- New York Federal Court Enforces Non-Compete Against Employee Terminated for Cause
- Louisiana, Maryland, and Iowa Pass Laws Restricting Noncompetes Specific to Certain Professions
- Delaware Refuses to Blue Pencil Overbroad Restrictive Covenants Following Business Acquisition
- Virginia Senate Bill 128 Adds Health Care Professionals to Virginia’s Noncompete Restrictions
- When the Deal Closes, the Trade Secrets Don't: Enforcing Sale-of-Business Covenants Under Judicial Scrutiny