a reasonable royalty for unauthorized disclosure or use; exemplary damages up to two times the amount of awarded damages in cases of willful or malicious misappropriation; and reasonable attorneys' fees in cases of willful and malicious misappropriation. who is able to establish that a claim for misappropriation was made in bad faith. criminal whistleblower immunity to individuals in three key instances: (1) for any confidential disclosure of a trade secret to a government official for the sole purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; (2) for a disclosure of a trade secret that is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or proceeding if the filing is made under seal; and (3) for disclosing a trade secret to an attorney or in a court proceeding in a retaliation lawsuit brought against an employer for reporting a suspected violation of law, provided that any document containing a trade secret is filed under seal and not disclosed except pursuant to court order. whistleblower immunity to an employee before receiving any award of exemplary damages or attorneys' fees in an action against the employee. to provide notice of this immunity "in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information." a cross-reference to a policy document provided to the employee that sets forth the employer's reporting policy for a suspected violation of law, and it applies to contracts or agreements entered into or updated after the effective date of the DTSA (May 11, 2016). For purposes of this notice requirement, "employee" includes not just employees, but contractors and consultants as well. between the DTSA and the GTSA. Most significantly, the DTSA permits, under seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret. themselves. or verified complaint satisfying the rigorous requirements of the statute, and the court must set a hearing "at the earliest possible time, and not later than seven days after the order has issued" unless the seized party consents to another date. specific findings beyond the requirements for an injunction or temporary restraining order. satisfy the need for relief "because the party to which the order would be issued would evade, avoid, or otherwise not comply with such an order." extraordinary circumstances and to grant requests for seizures. an injunction may not "prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship," and any conditions or restrictions placed on any employment "shall be based on evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on the information the person knows." i.e., enjoining a former employee from entering into an employment relationship based on the argument that the individual will "inevitably disclose" the alleged trade secrets as part of his or her new employment. The DTSA provides only a three-year statute of limitations from the date of discovery or when such misappropriation should have been discovered, as opposed to five years under the GTSA. Yet the GTSA provides no whistleblower immunity. So far, state and federal courts in Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit tend to analyze DTSA claims alongside state trade secret claims without noting any differences. DTSA claims in federal court, a Georgia practitioner should consider the following, the federal court could be expected to act on a request for emergency relief compared to a state court; (2) the existence of state law claims that could not be brought because of the GTSA's preemption; (3) the need for nationwide discovery; (4) the necessity and practicality of an ex parte seizure; (5) whether the specific trade secret claims actually involve products or services in interstate commerce; DTSA compared to the GTSA. Massachusetts have--with some tweaks--enacted. Fla. Sept. 27, 2016) (denying the motion to dismiss but limiting the DTSA claim to prohibited acts after the effective date of the DTSA). 4 18 U.S.C. § 1838. 5 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2). 6 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3). 7 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3). 8 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b). 9 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). 10 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(A). 11 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(4). 12 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2). 13 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A). 14 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(B). 15 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii). 16 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I). 17 See, e.g., OOO Brunswick Rail Mgmt. v. Sultanov, No. Jan. 6, 2017) ("[S]eizure under the DTSA is unnecessary because the Court will order that [defendant] must deliver these devices to the Court at the time of the hearing[.]"). 19 See, e.g., M.C. Dean, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, Florida, both state and DTSA trade secret claims); see also Agilysys, Inc. v. Hall, No. 1:16-CV-3557-ELR, 2017 WL 2903364, at *11 (N.D. Ga. May 25, 2017) ("[H]aving found that Plaintiff'='s GTSA claim will proceed . . . Plaintiff's DTSA claim will also proceed[.]"). DTSA does not specifically include a customer list. Compare O.C.G.A. § § 10-1-761(4) with 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3). As another example, as noted, the DTSA--but not the GTSA-- expressly limits injunctive relief that encroaches on one's ability to work. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A) with O.C.G.A. § 10-1-762. |