On December 20, 2020, the US Senate unanimously passed a new bipartisan bill designed to punish foreign individuals and corporations involved in intellectual property theft.
The Protecting American Intellectual Property Act was co-authored by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. The bill requires a report to Congress every six months identifying:
any individual or firm that has engaged in, benefitted from, or materially assisted the significant theft of U.S. trade secrets,…
Crowell & Moring invites you to attend the webinar, 2020 Trade Secrets Year in Review, taking place on Thursday, January 28 at 12:00 pm ET. We will cover what you need to know about the big cases, changes, and developments relating to trade secrets from the past year.
Join Raija Horstman, Molly Jones and Julia Milewski for a discussion focusing on three key areas:
China: Focusing on the international impact of China and trade…
On January 13, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued the long-awaited public version of its final opinion in the Matter of Botulinum Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-1145), otherwise known as the “Botox case.” As previewed in the ITC’s earlier notice of decision, the ITC’s final opinion affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s issuance of a 21-month ban on imports and sale of Respondents’ lower-cost alternative to Botox for misappropriation of trade secret manufacturing processes and reversed…
The EU Whistleblower Directive: A Burden or an Opportunity?
Tension between the protection of whistleblowers and the protection of trade secrets?
Companies should see the obligations set out in the EU Whistleblower Directive regarding internal reporting channels as an opportunity rather than a burden. Having an internal tool to facilitate detection of possible misconduct at an early stage and to maintain control over that issue internally is useful and to be welcomed.…
On December 16, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held for the first time in Attia v. Google LLC that a misappropriation claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) may be brought for a misappropriation that started prior to the enactment of the DTSA as long as the claim also arises from post-enactment misappropriation or from the continued use of the same trade secret. The decision further expands…
As the year comes to a close, it’s safe to say 2020 was a year unlike any other and full of lessons to be learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to the growing threat to U.S. intellectual property abroad.
A look back on the 10 most read posts from this past year highlights some key developments in trade secret law in 2020:
Non-Compete Agreements and Restrictive Covenants During COVID-19Is Chinese IP Theft Coming to an …
In an increasingly global economy, trade secrets and confidential information frequently cross borders and so do claims of trade secret theft and misappropriation. This article provides practical advice for business leaders on how to ensure that trade secret claims against foreign defendants can remain in court.…
Last week, a District Court in the Southern District of New York imposed a $40,000 sanction on SIMO Holdings, Inc. (“SIMO”) for violating a pretrial discovery protective order. SIMO disclosed four documents covered under the protective order to persons not permitted to view those documents, and the Court determined that a $10,000 sanction for each document was warranted.…
On December 16, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) affirmed in part and reversed in part Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw’s final initial determination from July against a South Korean manufacturer of an anti-wrinkle beauty treatment made from the botulinum toxin bacteria called Jeuveau. The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s findings with respect to the manufacturing process trade secrets but overturned the ALJ’s finding that Complainants Medytox and Allergan had any protectable interest in the…
Virginia recently joined a growing list of states that have passed legislation prohibiting employers from enforcing non-compete agreements against low-wage employees. Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Washington have already enacted similar legislation. And as we previously posted, similar legislation was introduced in the United States Senate nearly a year ago, though it did not advance. The trend reflects recognition among policy makers that non-compete agreements may unfairly restrict low-wage workers,…