Building an Impenetrable Information Fortress: Trade Secret Protection, Client Data Safeguards, and Competitive Advantage in the Post-Restrictive Covenant Era

Gregory S. Bombard
Gregory S. Bombard | Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Gregory S. Bombard is a Shareholder in the Boston office of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, where he is a trial lawyer focused on trade secret litigation, business torts, and complex commercial disputes. He represents pharmaceutical, biotechnology, technology, and manufacturing companies in state and federal courts and in arbitration, on both the plaintiff and defense side, with a practice centered on protecting confidential business information, managing the risks of employee departures, and litigating noncompete, nonsolicitation, and trade secret misappropriation claims.

Live Video-Broadcast: November 20, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

Without the Non-Compete, “Reasonable Measures” Is the Whole Case

The FTC’s non-compete rule has been vacated, and a growing number of states now ban or sharply limit non-competes. Employers can no longer count on the covenant to keep information from walking out the door. Trade secret law and information security have become the front line.

The stakes arrive before the complaint is filed. Under the DTSA and every state’s UTSA, protection exists only for information the owner took reasonable measures to keep secret. Recite security in a handbook without practicing it and the court rejects the measure. Draft a non-solicit too broadly for California or Minnesota and it becomes a de facto non-compete. Lose the audit trails, attestations, and access logs and the TRO motion has no story to tell.

This two-session program gives attorneys a practical, state-agnostic playbook they can implement immediately. Attendees leave with a method for inventorying and tiering protectable information and confidentiality language that avoids overbreadth. Onboarding and offboarding protocols generate the evidentiary record. A layered protection framework, from non-solicits to compensation-based retention tools, depends on no single agreement.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Defining and Inventorying the Asset
    Identify what qualifies as a trade secret under the DTSA and state UTSA variations, including customer lists, pricing, and negative know-how, then classify and tier it across business units with IT, HR, and business owners.
  • Reasonable Measures in Practice
    Apply access controls, need-to-know restrictions, marking and labeling, encryption, DLP tools, and physical security in the ways courts have credited rather than rejected as insufficient.
  • Agreements That Hold Up
    Draft confidentiality and invention-assignment agreements that define confidential information without overbreadth, include the DTSA whistleblower immunity notice, and avoid the de facto non-compete trap and NLRB limits.
  • Lifecycle Protocols and Proof
    Run prior-employer clearance and clean-room practices at hire, and exit interviews, device return, forensic imaging, and litigation holds at departure, while preserving the training records, attestations, and access logs that carry a TRO motion.
  • Non-Solicits as the Front Line
    Draft customer and employee non-solicits for California, Minnesota, and other restrictive jurisdictions, and apply the “solicit” versus “accept” distinction to social media contact.
  • Layered Protection Strategy
    Combine garden leave, forfeiture-for-competition and clawback provisions, CRM ownership and access design, and privacy compliance into a protection strategy that does not depend on any single agreement.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: November 20, 2026

  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Eastern
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Central
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Mountain
  • 9:00 am – 11:10 am Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Gregory S. Bombard, Shareholder | Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Gregory S. Bombard is a Shareholder in the Boston office of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, where he is a trial lawyer focused on trade secret litigation, business torts, and complex commercial disputes. He represents pharmaceutical, biotechnology, technology, and manufacturing companies in state and federal courts and in arbitration, on both the plaintiff and defense side, with a practice centered on protecting confidential business information, managing the risks of employee departures, and litigating noncompete, nonsolicitation, and trade secret misappropriation claims. He is a co-author of the American Bar Association’s treatise Protecting and Litigating Trade Secrets (2nd Ed.), and his trade secrets practice is recognized by IAM, The Legal 500, and World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), which describes him as “renowned for his practice in the area.” As employers across the country confront the narrowing of restrictive covenants, his work sits squarely at the center of how companies must now rely on trade secret law, confidentiality protocols, and litigation strategy to safeguard their most valuable information.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Bombard earned his J.D., cum laude, from Boston College Law School in 2010 and his B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Connecticut in 2007, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Following law school, he served as a judicial law clerk to the Connecticut Superior Court (2010–2011). He is admitted to practice in Massachusetts, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Bombard is consistently ranked among the leading trade secrets practitioners in the United States. He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America for Trade Secrets Law (2023–2027) after earlier recognition as a Best Lawyers “Ones to Watch” honoree (2021); in The Legal 500 United States for Trade Secrets (2023– 2026); in World Intellectual Property Review’s “USA Trade Secrets” ranking (2025); and in IAM Patent 1000 for Litigation and Trade Secret Litigation (2024–2026). He has been named to Boston magazine’s “Top Lawyers – Commercial Litigation” list (2022), to Massachusetts Super Lawyers (2021–2026) following six consecutive years as a Massachusetts Rising Star (2015–2020), and was honored by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly as an “Excellence in the Law: Up & Coming Lawyer” (2019).

  • Professional Involvement

Mr. Bombard has served since 2020 as Co-Chair of the American Bar Association’s Trade Secrets Litigation Subcommittee, placing him at the center of the national dialogue on trade secret doctrine, discovery, and remedies. He is a co-author of the ABA’s Protecting and Litigating Trade Secrets (2nd Ed.), a leading practitioner’s treatise on the subject, and is a frequent writer and speaker on trade secret topics, including litigation finance, damages theories, and protective orders. He has held numerous leadership roles in the Boston Bar Association, including Co-Chair of its Intellectual Property Litigation Committee (2017–2020), Co-Chair of the Senior Associates’ Forum Business Development Committee (2018–2020), and Co-Chair of the IP Basics Committee (2016–2017), and he has been a Junior Fellow of the Boston Bar Foundation since 2018. He also serves on the Board of Design Museum Everywhere (2021–present).

  • Experience

Mr. Bombard’s trade secret and restrictive covenant docket spans the life sciences, technology, cybersecurity, packaging, manufacturing, and energy sectors. He defended Revance Therapeutics against a competitor’s trade secret suit in Tennessee; defended a sports-gaming technology company in combined patent and trade secret litigation in Georgia; secured dismissal of a trade secret claim in Delaware on statute-of-limitations grounds; and represented Dicerna Pharmaceuticals in trade secret litigation in which the company’s counterclaims survived three rounds of dispositive motions, prior to Dicerna’s $3.3 billion acquisition by Novo Nordisk. He has handled numerous employee-departure, noncompete, and internal investigation matters, advising clients on how to lock down confidential information when key personnel leave and how to respond when a competitor’s hires raise misappropriation concerns. His broader litigation experience includes defending the LEGO Group and WarnerMedia in a Delaware patent suit, leading a two-week bench trial in the Massachusetts Business Litigation Session in a university licensing dispute, and defending banks, credit card processors, mortgage servicers, and consumer finance companies in Massachusetts Chapter 93A and class action matters — including a jury verdict for a national mortgage lender in the District of Massachusetts. This combination of courtroom experience and deep subject-matter authority makes him uniquely positioned to guide practitioners through building an information-protection strategy that holds up in the post-restrictive covenant era.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Building a Trade Secret Program Courts Will Enforce | Gregory S. Bombard | 12:00pm – 1:00pm

Trade secret claims are won or lost long before the complaint is filed. Under the DTSA and every state’s version of the UTSA, protection exists only for information the owner took reasonable measures to keep secret — and courts increasingly scrutinize whether those measures were real or merely recited in a handbook. This session lays out, step by step, how to identify what a company actually owns, how to secure it in a way that satisfies the statutory standard, and how to generate the documentary record that carries a TRO motion. It covers the full employee lifecycle, from onboarding through the exit interview, with attention to the specific mistakes that routinely sink otherwise strong cases.

BREAK | 1:00pm – 1:10pm

SESSION 2 – Protecting Competitive Advantage Without a Non-Compete | Gregory S. Bombard | 1:10pm – 2:10pm

When the non-compete is unavailable or unenforceable, employers still have a substantial toolkit — but each tool carries its own limits, and several states now treat overbroad confidentiality or non-solicitation provisions as de facto non-competes subject to the same bans. This session surveys the alternative contractual, compensation-based, and operational protections, explains where the enforceability lines are being drawn in the most restrictive jurisdictions, and shows how modern information governance and privacy compliance programs double as competitive safeguards. It closes with a practical framework for advising clients on a layered protection strategy that does not depend on any single agreement.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
Recovering Elder Financial Exploitation Losses
Recovering Elder Financial Exploitation Losses Tue, October 20, 2026
Live Webcast
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit Fri, October 23, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay