Professor Elizabeth Rowe is an internationally recognized expert on Trade Secret Law. Much of her research addresses the intersection of trade secrets with employment law and/or technology, as well as the interplay between intellectual property, government policy, and innovation.
Industry Expertise (2)
Media - Online
Areas of Expertise (3)
Media Appearances (1)
Trade Secrets Law in Florida Collides With Academic Culture
Bloomberg Law online
“The culture of academia has in part always been about openness and sharing, and reward for publishing,” Rowe said. “Academia, for better or worse, has woken up to the realization of the monetization of their assets and their IP.”
Regulating Facial Recognition Technology in the Private SectorStanford Technology Law Review
Elizabeth A. Rowe
2021 As Congress considers possible federal regulation of facial recognition technology in the U.S., it is important to understand the way in which this technology is utilized, especially in the private sector, as well as the benefits to and concerns of the various stakeholders. The absence of federal regulation in this space has created much uncertainty for companies and consumers alike. Accordingly, as we stand at the crossroads of this highly significant decision, to regulate or not to regulate, this Article endeavors to identify common interests and common areas of concern among the various stakeholders, including developers of the technologies, business users, and consumers (broadly conceptualized as private individuals, business to business, and government users). With those in mind, it poses certain guided questions to outline the contours of any regulation. Finally, it recommends three concrete and tailored steps toward crafting regulation of facial recognition technology.
eBay, Permanent Injunctions, and Trade SecretsWashington and Lee Law Review
Elizabeth A. Rowe
2019 This Article presents the first qualitative empirical review of permanent injunctions in trade secret cases. In addition, it explores the extent to which the Supreme Court’s patent decision in eBay v. MercExchange has influenced the analysis of equitable principles in federal trade secret litigation. Among the more notable findings are that while equitable principles are generally applied in determining whether to grant a permanent injunction to a prevailing party after trial, the courts are not necessarily strictly applying the four factors from eBay. The award of monetary relief does not preclude equitable injunctive relief, and courts can find irreparable harm even where the loss has been compensated monetarily. Moreover, where injunctions are requested but denied, the lack of irreparable harm seemed to have been the factor most often articulated as the reason for the denial.
Revisiting Trade Secret ExtraterritorialityBoston University Journal of Science and Technology Law
Elizabeth A. Rowe, Giulia Farrior
2019 This Article analyzes the extraterritorial provision in the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and considers the arguments on both sides of the question as to whether Congress expressed an affirmative indication that section 1837 of the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) would apply to the DTSA. We tackle the confusion surrounding the DTSA’s extraterritorial reach and suggest the use of a “domestic effect test,” which could be implemented via either amending the statute to provide greater clarity on its extraterritorial intention, or, absent an amendment, as a means of guiding courts in interpreting the statute’s extraterritorial reach in civil cases. This proposal is consistent with how courts and Congress have approached other areas of law that have faced similar questions on a statute’s extraterritorial reach.
Snapshot of Trade Secret DevelopmentsWilliam & Mary Law Review
Elizabeth A. Rowe
2018 As we enter the second year post enactment of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, this Paper presents a snapshot of developments to assess whether there appear to be any significant doctrinal changes afoot in trade secret litigation, both civil and criminal, during the past year. I take a qualitative look at some of the substantive rulings from 2017 to date. My assessment based on this limited sampling is that there do not appear to be any dramatic changes to the doctrinal development of the law to date. The paper highlights some noteworthy civil cases from select federal and state courts. The cases are organized topically to provide the reader with a quick overview of recent rulings in various categories, from stating a claim for trade secret misappropriation to discovery related issues including protective orders, as well as damages and injunctive relief.
Debating Employee Non-Competes and Trade SecretsSanta Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal
Sharon K. Sandeen, Elizabeth A. Rowe
2017 Recently, a cacophony of concerns have been raised about the propriety of noncompetition agreements (NCAs) entered into between employers and employees, fueled by media reports of agreements which attempt to restrain low-wage and low-skilled workers, such as sandwich makers and dog walkers. In the lead-up to the passage of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), public policy arguments in favor of employee mobility were strongly advocated by those representing the “California view” on the enforceability of NCAs, leading to a special provision of the DTSA which limits injunctive relief with respect to employee NCAs. Through our lens as trade secret scholars, we have decided to enter the fray and present this Article to explore both the values and detriments of NCAs, each taking sides in the debate and providing relevant information about the different approaches to the enforceability of these agreements.