FACULTY

From the Judiciary and the Government:

Hon. Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco

Hon. S. Raj Chatterjee, Judge, Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland, CA

Helen L. Gilbert, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, National Security & Special Prosecutions,

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, San Francisco

Hon Rita F. Lin, United States District Judge, Northern District of California, San Francisco

Alexandra Bryant, Supervisory Special Agent, Cyber Criminal Squad, Federal Bureau of Investigation, San Francisco Division, San Francisco

 

OTHER FACULTY:

Adam R. Alper, Partner Intellectual Property, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, San Francisco

Scott Atkinson, Vice President of Litigation and Compliance, Fortinet, San Mateo

Warren Braunig, Partner, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco

Amy Candido, Partner, Head of Intellectual Property Litigation, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, San Francisco

Neel Chatterjee, Partner, King & Spalding LLP, Silicon Valley

Shaelyn K. Dawson, Partner, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco

Michael W. De Vries, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles

David M. Elihu, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA

Gabriel S. Gross, Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA

Kenneth A. Kuwayti, Partner, Morrison & Foerster, Palo Alto

R. Preston McAfee, Scientist, Google, Hermosa Beach, CA

Daniel M. McGavock, Vice President, Practice Leader of Intellectual Property, Charles River Associates, Chicago

Mindy M. Morton, Chair, Trade Secrets Practice, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, Palo Alto

Chris B. Phillips, Counsel, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco

M. Sean Radcliffe, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, R1 RCM, Denver

Cuyler Robinson, Vice President, Forensic Services, Charles River Associates, Chicago

Krista Schwartz, Partner, Co-Chair of the IP Litigation Practice Group, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, San Francisco

Laura Vartain, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, San Francisco

Patricia Young, Partner, Global Vice Chair, Intellectual Property Practice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Redwood City

In the Age of Artificial Intelligence,

Trade Secrets Protection Is More Important Than Ever

 

“California has Dominated AI Innovation with 33 of the Top 50 Private Companies in the World Based in California.”*

 

Through its new Executive Order, the State of California is anticipating further disruption from AI usage. Artificial intelligence is rapidly shaping the landscape of trade secret protection and litigation.  In fact, California issued a new Executive Order May 21, 2026 to prepare workers and businesses for disruption from AI. 

 

As companies integrate AI into their operations, proprietary data and outputs are being generated that may qualify as trade secrets—but are increasingly difficult to secure.  AI tools can inadvertently expose confidential information, raising new questions about reasonable security measures and employee access controls. 

 

At the same time, AI is transforming trade secret disputes themselves:  advanced analytics can help detect anomalous data transfers, trace information flows and uncover patterns indicative of misappropriation.  Courts will confront novel evidentiary issues, including whether AI-generated insights are admissible and how to assess damages when stolen data accelerates an adversary’s product development.   As AI capabilities grow, companies must rethink traditional risk frameworks and adapt their trade secret strategies to an era of unprecedented data creation, mobility and vulnerability. 

 

Employee Mobility, Non-Competes, Forfeiture for Competition Provisions

Courts in various jurisdictions have taken different approaches with respect to whether employee non-solicits should be held to the same standards as non-competes—and on the question of what constitutes solicitation in the first place. With new California laws in place purporting to invalidate non-competes from all jurisdictions, a few recent decisions shed light on how California courts will analyze a noncompete if an employee moves to California. Our distinguished faculty will address all these topics.

 

California and Other State Laws

The FTC has abandoned its efforts to implement a broad ban on non-competes, but continues to regulate aggressive use of non-competes through enforcement actions.  Some state legislatures have stepped in, with Wyoming banning most non-competes while Florida and Kansas enacted enforcement-friendly legislation.  Delaware courts, meanwhile, have expanded their willingness to enforce certain forfeiture-for-competition provisions, at least in the context of voluntary resignations, while continuing their trend of refusing to enforce overly broad non-competes or non-solicits in the employment, partnership, and even sale-of-business contexts.

 

Navigating the Wild World of Trade Secret Damages

Soaring jury verdicts and creative damages theories are facing increased judicial scrutiny. Two important trade secrets cases Versata Software v. Ford Motor Company and Insulet v. EOFlow were overturned recently.  How to size up the value of a case is more important than ever.  In Versata a Federal Appeals Court held plaintiffs may sue for unjust enrichment damages based on defendants gains from stolen technology rather than the cost of a licensing deal. *

 

Unjust enrichment, a split between circuits on damages, reasonable royalties, punitive damages, and lost profits will be discussed. 

 

Our panel of seasoned litigators and experts will discuss strategies for maximizing recovery and minimizing exposure in trade secret litigation. Drawing on recent case decisions, our panel will provide practical tips on adequately alleging the existence of valuable trade secrets, proving causation, avoiding double recovery, “avoided cost” theories, apportionment, and aligning trade secret definition with damages theories.

 

Key takeaways from recent verdicts and court decisions will be discussed, including Quintara v. Ruifeng, Versata Software v. Ford Motor Company; Appian v. Pegasystems; Insulet v. EOFlow; Syntel v. TriZetto; Motorola v. Hytera; Propel Fuels v. Phillips 66; Ryan v. FTC and Properties of the Villages v. FTC.