Electronic Signatures on Online Forms

The following is a guest post I wrote for FormSpring’s blog a few weeks back re: Electronic Signatures on Online Forms.  FormSpring provides organizations with an easy way to build web forms that integrate with their websites without any programming, software, or special skills.

formspringlogo

FormSpring customers often ask about collecting electronic signatures via FormSpring’s web forms. Here are some examples of the types of questions customers are asking:

  • Does your product offer a way to do verifiable signatures? My client wants to post job applications online which will need this functionality.
  • Our company is looking to add an online enrollment form with an electronic signature on our web site. Is this something you can help with?
  • We have a contract that we want to get up online but are not sure of the most efficient way to do it. The majority of it is in a word document and we’d like to add payment integration and some contact info input and a digital signature.
  • We have a waiver, disclamer, and legal notice that we need to have a digital signature on before they submit payment via PayPal. Can I do this?

FormSpring does a wonderful technical job of making these options available to their customers, and I’ll leave it to them to explain how they work their magic. But they’ve asked that I help explain the legality/enforceability of electronic signatures. Ultimately, being legal or enforceable means that a court would accept an electronic signature collected via your form as admissible trial evidence should there ever be a dispute that requires court intervention.

First, I’ll preface this post by saying that Adobe previously ran an excellent series of blog posts on the topic of electronic signatures. These posts are definitely worth a read if you’re interested in more information on electronic signatures:

  1. “So what is an electronic signature anyway?“
  2. “Trust Us!” – Electronic Signatures and Assurance
  3. “This is legal, right?” – Electronic Signatures & The Law

I’ll address some of those points here as they pertain to web forms. First, what is an electronic signature, and how does it differ from a traditional pen-to-paper signature? Obviously it’s electronic and not ink, but there’s more to it than that…or is there?

In commerce and the law, a signature on a document is an indication that the person adopts the intentions recorded in the document. Accordingly, an electronic signature is any legally recognized electronic means that indicates that a person adopts the contents of an electronic message.

The historical legal concept of “signature” is broader. It recognizes any mark made with the intention of authenticating the marked document. Hence, an “X” can often suffice as a proper signature.

Courts will accept an “electronic signature” as a “signature” so long as it meets the definition set forth by precedent and law (in other words, the definition varies by jurisdiction). An electronic signature and a pen-to-paper signature are equivalent in most respects, and can admissible in trial.

That being said, all signatures (whether electronic or old-school) intended to be entered into evidence in a trial need to be assessed for “admissibility.” Some of the threshold evidentiary questions are: Does it represent the intent of the signatory? Has the document/form been altered? Who had the right to sign this document/form? How was the signature derived, and what controlled access to the document for its signature? These questions come into play no matter the type of signature.

Higher assurance signature methods that better authenticate the signatory, such as encryption or username/password requirements, are more likely to be accepted than signature technologies which provide lesser assurance. While an electronic signature may be a legal signature, it can still be held inadmissible if the judge feels that the signature process did not provide the appropriate level of assurance.

Electronic Signatures and Records Association, an organization which seeks to expand knowledge on both electronic signature and records, plays an active role in public policy on these topics. Check them out for additional information on the legality of electronic signatures.

In the next installment, I’ll discuss the difference between electronic signatures and digital signatures. See you then.

Opportunities and Barriers in Alternative Energy – TechPoint Event 9/4/09

The Obama administration has set ambitious goals for renewable energy and other ‘clean’ technologies – like doubling renewable energy use within three years and putting a million plug-in electric vehicles on U.S. highways by 2015 – and backed them up with significant federal funding. Venture capitalists have bought in, investing in the energy sector at record levels.

So what are the barriers that still inhibit the markets for wind power, fuel cells, coal gasification and other energy advances? How can Indiana help break down these barriers and reap the economic benefits? Register for this month’s New Economy New Rules for the answers.

techPoint-Logo

Speakers:

Noel M. Davis, Principal, JGC Industries, LLC
Greg Winkler, Director, Project Development, Brevini Wind USA, Inc
Leon Steinberg, Chief Executive Officer, National Wind LLC

Date: September 4, 2009

8:00 a.m. Registration and continental breakfast
8:30 – 9:30 a.m. Presentation

Click here to register.

Hope to see you there!

Welcome to the new home of the Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Blog

Welcome to the new home of The Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Blog.  The blog has now permanently moved here from its former sub-domain (http://klflegal.wordpress.com).  Please make any necessary changes to your links/RSS feeds/etc.  The prior site will remain up for several weeks to allow everyone to make the switch.

Expect the same great content…Indiana-related legal and news updates for intellectual property law (patent, trademark, copyright, trade secrets, etc.) and technology issues.

Picture 1

Thanks, Kenan L. Farrell

Facebook, Twitter

Oregon Court Grants Indiana Corporation's Motion To Stay In Non-Compete Matter

Source: Robert Milligan and summer associate Alana Friedman of Seyfarth Shaw LLP

guidantlogo

A federal district court in Oregon recently granted a motion to stay in a dual-state non-compete matter based on the first-to-file rule, even though the two cases were filed only a few hours apart. The first-to-file rule provides that, when similar cases have been filed in different federal district courts, it is within the court’s discretion to dismiss the second filed action when it involves the same parties and issues.

In Biotronik, Inc. v. Guidance Sales Corp., 2009 WL 1838322 (D. Or. Jun. 22, 2009), Judge King of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted Guidant Sales Corporation’s (“GSC”) motion to stay against GSC’s competitor, Biotronik, Inc (“Biotronik”).  The court granted the motion to stay based on the first-to-file rule.  Id. at *3.

Biotronik and GSC are competitors in the distribution of cardiac rhythm management devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators. Biotronik is an Oregon corporation and GSC is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota.

logo_biotronik

On April 10, 2009, twelve GSC employees ended their employment at GSC and began working at Biotronik. The employees signed agreements with GSC containing non-compete, non-solicit, and non-disclosure provisions. The agreements contained Minnesota forum and choice of law provisions.

On April 14, 2009, at approximately 12:26 p.m PDT, GSC filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking damages from Biotronik and the twelve defecting employees for allegedly breaching their employment agreements. GSC also alleged several employees breached their duty of loyalty as well as their non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreements. GSC further alleged that Biotronik tortiously interfered with GSC’s contract with its employees and aided and abetted the employees’ breach of their duty of loyalty to GSC. Finally, GSC sought a declaration that its non-compete agreement with each of the twelve employees was valid and enforceable and that Minnesota law applies.

Later that same day, Biotronik filed suit in Oregon state court at approximately 5:11 p.m. PDT (Biotronik apparently e-mailed the complaint to GSC at 3:42 p.m. PDT in advance of the filing). Biotronik sought a declaration that the twelve employees, and one additional former GSC employee also working for Biotronik, were in compliance with all of the “enforceable” restrictive covenants contained in the agreements they signed while employed by GSC. The former employees were not named parties to the action. The case was later removed to the federal district court in Oregon and assigned to Judge King.

On April 29, 2009, the Minnesota federal court entered a stipulated temporary restraining order and order for expedited discovery. The TRO required Biotronik to return confidential information and prohibited Biotronik from inducing the employees to solicit other GSC employees to leave. The employees were also prohibited from disclosing or retaining confidential information and soliciting current GSC employees to leave.

GSC then moved to have the federal case in Oregon dismissed or stayed under the first-to-file rule. The court found that the first-to-file rule was applicable because Biotronik and GSC are parties to both actions and the issues are substantially similar since both cases seek to determine the enforceability of the non-competition agreement. Id. at *2 (relying on Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F. 2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Although the court noted that rigid application of the first-to-file rule was not required, especially where the cases were filed only hours apart, it nevertheless chose to enforce the rule. The court provided two reasons as to why it was appropriate to grant the stay and allow the Minnesota case to proceed. Id. at *3. First, the Minnesota case would more thoroughly resolve the dispute because it involved more issues than the Oregon case. The court reasoned that Biotronik would still have to defend some of the charges in the Minnesota action even if the Oregon case proceeded. Second, the Minnesota action had progressed more quickly than the Oregon action since the parties in the Minnesota action had already agreed to a temporary restraining order and discovery had already begun. Id. The court also noted that Biotronik had not relied on any of the exceptions of the first-to-file rule, such as bad faith, anticipatory suit, and forum shopping. Id.(citing Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991)) (emphasis added).

The court summed up its decision by stating that, “[i]n short, application of the first-to-file rule will promote the interest of judicial economy and avoid the possibility of conflicting judgments.” Id.

The case serves an important reminder that, depending upon the circumstances, filing suit first can make a difference when it comes to enforcing non-competition and non-solicitation covenants against former employees and their new employers, and vice versa. However, where there is demonstrated evidence of forum shopping, the court may decline to apply the “first-filed” rule.