Hayan Yoon
In two 2019 rulings
, the Federal Circuit invoked the “written description requirement” of 35 U.S.C. § 112 to require evidentiary support for therapeutic efficacy. Now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear one of those cases, “written description” will continue to present a hurdle to patentability, in addition to the utility and enablement requirements.
Litigation-Proofing Your Trade Secrets: Practical Steps to Ensure They’re Enforceable in Court Robert Counihan and Jedediah Wakefield
Trade secret litigation is on the rise, and new case law related to enforceability has broad implications for how companies protect information that they consider to be trade secrets. Drawing on these cases, we offer practical steps for ensuring that your company’s trade secret “crown jewels” are enforceable in court especially if your business is in a knowledge-based sector, such as technology or life sciences.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Trade secret litigation is on the rise, and new case law related to enforceability has broad implications for how companies protect information that they consider to be trade secrets.
The
Lex Machina 2020 Trade Secret Litigation Report (request the report here) traced the rising litigation trend to 2016, when the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) was passed. The law has allowed claimants to file trade secret cases directly in federal court when there is a connection between a trade secret and interstate or foreign commerce. Since then, filings have risen 30%, and growth is expected to continue.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Global competition in high-tech industries is as intense as ever, and U.S. administrative agencies continue to find themselves at the center of global disputes between foreign companies seeking to vindicate trade secret and intellectual property rights. That outlook was confirmed this month in a highly-anticipated ruling by the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in a trade secret dispute between two South Korean manufacturers of electric vehicle batteries.
On February 10, 2021, the ITC issued its final determination (Inv. No. 337-TA-1159) affirming an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) initial determination that the South Korean company SK Innovation had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by misappropriating trade secret information regarding electric vehicle batteries from LG Chem, Ltd., also from South Korea. The ALJ had entered a default judgment against SK Innovation on February 14, 2020, f
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
The ITC issued its final determination affirming an ALJ’s initial determination that the South Korean company SK Innovation had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by misappropriating trade secret information regarding electric vehicle batteries from LG Chem, Ltd.