Trade Secrets

Click here to view our Trade Secrets professionals

At McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, we understand that trade secrets and “know how” are among a business's most valuable intellectual property rights. We appreciate that a business’s success can be closely tied to its ability to protect its trade secrets, whatever form they are found in. As a result, we work cooperatively with our clients to find solutions that strike the best balance of protecting them from misappropriation, while promoting internal collaboration and business success.

Our attorneys have extensive experience counseling clients on how to protect against the theft of trade secrets from both external and internal threats. That starts with assisting clients in identifying the many types of confidential information and things that can be protected as trade secrets. Furthermore, since a trade secret’s value depends on keeping it a secret, another critical concern is assisting clients in safeguarding the secrecy of their trade secrets. We collaborate with our clients to develop unique solutions to provide the security they need to thrive. Whether it be drafting or reviewing agreements with employees, consultants, vendors, suppliers, or competitors; designing or reviewing security and secrecy methods and policies; or conducting training sessions for employees, our attorneys work together with clients to customize strategies to protect the clients’ trade secrets from inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure and misappropriation.

If litigation is necessary to enforce our clients’ trade secret rights -- or if a client is forced to defend against a competitor’s allegations -- our attorneys draw on their years of experience to aggressively and effectively litigate trade secret disputes. These cases are often complex and frequently demand swift action. Our team of attorneys has the legal and technical experience necessary to efficiently and effectively handle our clients’ trade secret disputes. We will initiate or respond to litigation as quickly as necessary, including filing or responding to temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunction motions.

P: 312.913.2104
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3330
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2121
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3315
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2112
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2126
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2133
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3359
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2379
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2132
F: 312.913.0002

Upcoming Events

February 8, 2018
MBHB Partner Kirsten Thomson is the Featured Presenter at this MATTER Sponsored Workshop
March 8, 2018
MBHB Attorney Aaron Gin, Ph.D. is the Featured Presenter at this MATTER Sponsored Workshop
May 15, 2018
May 16-17, 2018
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Presenter

Past Event

January 17, 2018
MBHB Partners Michael Borella, Ph.D., Kevin Noonan, Ph.D., and Donald Zuhn, Jr., Ph.D., Are Featured Presenters
November 14, 2017
MBHB Partners Eric Moran and Nicole Reifman Are Featured Presenters
October 27, 2017
MBHB Partners Anthoula Pomrening and Marcus Thymian Are the Featured Speakers for this Program
October 15-17, 2017
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Co-Speaker for this PRG-Sponsored Program
September 19, 2017
MBHB Partners Alison Baldwin and Paula Fritsch, Ph.D. Are Featured Presenters


Fall 2017 (snippets)
There are two organizations that handle the majority of UDRP complaints: the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). While, both WIPO and NAF follow the UDRP Rules, these two organizations have their own sets of supplemental rules.
Fall 2017 (snippets)
The U.S. Supreme Court at the end of the past term handed down a decision, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., that greatly expanded the doctrine of patent exhaustion.
September 22,2017 (snippets Alert)
In In re: Cray, Inc, No. 2017-129, the CAFC issued a writ of mandamus vacating Judge Gilstrap’s decision involving venue under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) in Raytheon Co. v. Cray Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1554 (E.D. Texas). That earlier decision raised concerns over whether the Supreme Court’s venue holding in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), would be given full effect. Judge Gilstrap had applied a broad 4-factor test for finding whether a defendant such as Cray had a “regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas under §1400(b). Judge Gilstrap’s test had attracted significant attention, and posited the Eastern District of Texas against most other district courts in applying § 1400(b).
Summer 2017 (snippets)
On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court reversed decades of expansive patent venue interpretation by the Federal Circuit. The ruling in TC Heartland immediately overturns long-standing “forum-shopping” practices and introduces a longer-term issue of defining “a regular and established place of business.”
Summer 2017 (snippets)
In Water Splash v. Menon, the Supreme Court presents guidance for multinational plaintiffs and defendants charting the rarely tested waters of international service. Specifically, in determining that service by direct mailing is not expressly prohibited under the Hague Service Convention, the Court opened the flood gates for parties to attempt Convention-compliant service by direct mailing.
Summer 2017 (snippets)
With cannabis policy reform and legalization continuing to gain momentum nationwide and internationally, the “Green Rush” is well underway. For companies and entrepreneurs entering this industry, comprehensive intellectual property (“IP”) protection is vital for their developing cannabis brands and inventions.
Generate a PDF of your page(s)
Page has been queued
An error has occurred
Added to queue
Confirm Delete All Message
No Items in Packet Message
To add a page, select Add. To view the package, select View.