Tag Archives: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

RoadLink Workforce Solutions, L.L.C. v. Malpass, 2013 WL 5274812 (W.D. Wa. Sept. 18, 2013). Employer granted employee authorization to access the information on the computer he is alleged to have to copied and deleted. Employer gave employee a computer with which he could maintain and update the purported trade secret information and other files. Under the Ninth Circuit’s …

Continue reading “RoadLink Workforce Solutions, L.L.C. v. Malpass, 2013 WL 5274812 (W.D. Wa. Sept. 18, 2013)”

Property Rights Law Group, P.C. v. Lynch, 2013 WL 4791485 (D. Hawaii Sept. 6, 2013) (9th Cir.) Violations of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(5) do not need to be pled with particularity. Motorola, Inc. v. Lemko Corp., 690 F. Supp.2d 760, 765 (N.D.Ill. 2009). “By contrast, section 1030(a)(4) is violated only if a defendant acts ‘with intent to defraud’ …

Continue reading “Property Rights Law Group, P.C. v. Lynch, 2013 WL 4791485 (D. Hawaii Sept. 6, 2013)”

Ocean Tomo, LLC v. Barney, 2013 WL 4804980 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2013) (7th Cir.) Plaintiff asserted a civil claim for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and alleged that it suffered over $5,000 in damages–that is, it claimed its damages were its loss. Defendant moved to dismiss the claim because Plaintiff failed to …

Continue reading “Ocean Tomo, LLC v. Barney, 2013 WL 4804980 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2013)”

Mu Sigma, Inc. v. Affine, Inc., 2013 WL 3772724 (D.N.J. July 17, 2013) (3rd Cir.) The only allegation of direct wrongdoing in the Complaint was insufficient to state a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim against the defendants: “Defendants intentionally accessed Mu Sigma’s protected computer without authorization … in violation of [18] U.S.C. § 1030(a) (5).” Needless …

Continue reading “Mu Sigma, Inc. v. Affine, Inc., 2013 WL 3772724 (D.N.J. July 17, 2013)”

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Feldstein, et al., 2013 WL 2666746 (D. Mass. June 10, 2013) (1st Cir.) The court acknowledges that it is unclear whether the First Circuit follows the narrow access means access theory or the broader intended use theory but chooses to applythe narrow. Under this theory, it finds plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to …

Continue reading “Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Feldstein, et al., 2013 WL 2666746 (D. Mass. June 10, 2013)”

Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Simple Cell, Inc., 2013 WL 3776933 (D. Md. July 17, 2013) (4th Cir.) Sprint alleged the defendants committed these acts in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: (1) trafficked in confidential codes through which individuals could gainaccess to Sprint’s network (§ 1030(a)(6)); (2) intentionally accessed Sprint’s protected network without …

Continue reading “Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Simple Cell, Inc., 2013 WL 3776933 (D. Md. July 17, 2013)”

Mission Information Resources, Inc. v. Hult, 2013 WL 3776442 (D.N.H. July 17, 2013) (1st Cir.) Defendant’s argument for dismissal may “depend on an erroneously stringent view of federal pleading requirements (e.g., that, at the pleading stage, MIR needs to ‘identify [the] files, programs, folders and systems’ that Hult allegedly deleted from his MIR-issued laptop in order to state …

Continue reading “Mission Information Resources, Inc. v. Hult, 2013 WL 3776442 (D.N.H. July 17, 2013)”

AirWatch LLC v. Mobile Iron, Inc., 2013 WL 4757491 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 4, 2013) (11th Cir.) The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act may form the predicate for unlawful conduct under the California Unfair Competition Law.

Wentworth-Douglass Hosp. v. Young & Novis Prof’l Ass’n, No. 10-CV-120-SM, 2012 WL 2522963, at *4 (D.N.H. June 29, 2012) (1st Cir.) “[S]imply denominating limitations as ‘access restrictions’ does not convert what is otherwise a use policy into an access restriction.”