The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 creates a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. It does not preempt existing state trade secret laws. The Act defines trade secret misappropriation and improper means of acquiring a trade secret. It establishes a three-year statute of limitations and allows for remedies such as civil seizure, injunction, damages, and attorney fees in cases of willful and malicious misappropriation.
Winston & Strawn’s Labor & Employment Practice hosted an eLunch titled “Defend Trade Secrets Act: Obligations and Opportunities” on May 31, 2016.
In today’s highly mobile and competitive marketplace, employers all too often face actual or threatened theft of company trade secrets and other confidential information. To address this growing business concern, President Barack Obama signed into law the bi-partisan Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) on May 11, 2016. The DTSA federalizes trade secrets law, thereby providing employers a clear path to enforce their trade secret rights in federal court.
During this eLunch, Winston & Strawn Partners Dan Fazio and Cardelle Spangler provided an important overview of what employers need to know about the DTSA, including:
• Overview of DTSA
• Comparison of the DTSA to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act
• Provisions unique to the DTSA
• DTSA’s whistleblower immunity provision
• DTSA’s notice requirements
• Tips and best practices for employers to protect trade secrets
Winston & Strawn’s Labor & Employment Practice hosted an eLunch titled “Defend Trade Secrets Act: Obligations and Opportunities” on May 31, 2016.
In today’s highly mobile and competitive marketplace, employers all too often face actual or threatened theft of company trade secrets and other confidential information. To address this growing business concern, President Barack Obama signed into law the bi-partisan Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) on May 11, 2016. The DTSA federalizes trade secrets law, thereby providing employers a clear path to enforce their trade secret rights in federal court.
During this eLunch, Winston & Strawn Partners Dan Fazio and Cardelle Spangler provided an important overview of what employers need to know about the DTSA, including:
• Overview of DTSA
• Comparison of the DTSA to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act
• Provisions unique to the DTSA
• DTSA’s whistleblower immunity provision
• DTSA’s notice requirements
• Tips and best practices for employers to protect trade secrets
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent news from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and decisions from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The USPTO continues to revise its manuals for trademark practice (TMEP and TBMP) on a rolling basis, and has issued new rules and guidance on certain specific types of trademarks, such as collective marks and repeating patterns. The TTAB has decided that it will presume that, between a manufacture and an exclusive distributor, the manufacture owns the mark, subject to rebuttal (UVeritech v. Amax Lighting). Another TTAB case addresses the interaction between the courts and the USPTO, where the TTAB refused to vacate a decision even though the parties later settled the case while on appeal (University of Alabama v. Pitts).
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: A Polsinelli Update SeriesPolsinelli PC
Just last Wednesday, President Obama signed into law a major revision to U.S. trade secrets law. Entitled the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), the legislation creates, for the first time, a Federal private, civil cause of action to protect trade secrets. As an additional body of protection over and beyond current state law, the legislation provides for nationwide substantive and procedural consistency and enhances the basic remedies of injunctive relief and damages. Most significantly, for the first time, it will provide for ex parte civil seizure of stolen trade secrets.
The following provisions of the new law will be discussed, along with implications for labor and employment practitioners:
-Details of the new law’s major provisions and the differences from and advantages over current state law;
-Requirements for and limitations on obtaining ex parte seizure;
-Enhanced judicial protections from disclosure in litigation;
-New protections for whistleblowers who disclose trade secrets to governmental authorities or courts;
-New requirements for employment agreements and policy documents containing confidentiality provisions
This presentation discusses the nuts and bolts of filing complaints as well as the elements required to file a UDRP action. In addition, the presentation provides an overview of the UDRP process and practical tips on how to handle the UDRP and URS processes.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed a number of patent law topics this year, including the standard of review for patent claim construction (Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz), royalties on expired patents (Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises), and defenses to claims of induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco). The initial wave of appeals in post-issuance proceedings provided by the America Invents Act are now being decided by the Federal Circuit. These include cases involving whether the decision to institute is reviewable (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies) and discussion of the claim construction standards that apply (Microsoft v. Proxyconn). The relationship between administrative challenges and related litigation is also an evolving area (ePlus v. Lawson Software).
Trade secret theft is a hot topic among companies today. Winston & Strawn attorneys David Enzminger, Sheryl Falk, and John Keville have successfully prosecuted trade secret cases across the US. In this dynamic presentation, these experienced attorneys shared practical advice to help you navigate your trade secret issues.
The slides are about the basic law on financial crimes very clearly explain cheating, difference between 417 IPC and 420 IPC ,its ingredients, ingredients of major sections in IPC and I T Act that deals with financial fraud etc.
A review of insider trading law, with emphasis on its application to recent cases involving hedge funds. Reviews Preet Bharara’s scorecard, the Galleon case, materiality and the “Mosaic Theory," and tipping chains.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent news from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and decisions from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The USPTO continues to revise its manuals for trademark practice (TMEP and TBMP) on a rolling basis, and has issued new rules and guidance on certain specific types of trademarks, such as collective marks and repeating patterns. The TTAB has decided that it will presume that, between a manufacture and an exclusive distributor, the manufacture owns the mark, subject to rebuttal (UVeritech v. Amax Lighting). Another TTAB case addresses the interaction between the courts and the USPTO, where the TTAB refused to vacate a decision even though the parties later settled the case while on appeal (University of Alabama v. Pitts).
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: A Polsinelli Update SeriesPolsinelli PC
Just last Wednesday, President Obama signed into law a major revision to U.S. trade secrets law. Entitled the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), the legislation creates, for the first time, a Federal private, civil cause of action to protect trade secrets. As an additional body of protection over and beyond current state law, the legislation provides for nationwide substantive and procedural consistency and enhances the basic remedies of injunctive relief and damages. Most significantly, for the first time, it will provide for ex parte civil seizure of stolen trade secrets.
The following provisions of the new law will be discussed, along with implications for labor and employment practitioners:
-Details of the new law’s major provisions and the differences from and advantages over current state law;
-Requirements for and limitations on obtaining ex parte seizure;
-Enhanced judicial protections from disclosure in litigation;
-New protections for whistleblowers who disclose trade secrets to governmental authorities or courts;
-New requirements for employment agreements and policy documents containing confidentiality provisions
This presentation discusses the nuts and bolts of filing complaints as well as the elements required to file a UDRP action. In addition, the presentation provides an overview of the UDRP process and practical tips on how to handle the UDRP and URS processes.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed a number of patent law topics this year, including the standard of review for patent claim construction (Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz), royalties on expired patents (Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises), and defenses to claims of induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco). The initial wave of appeals in post-issuance proceedings provided by the America Invents Act are now being decided by the Federal Circuit. These include cases involving whether the decision to institute is reviewable (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies) and discussion of the claim construction standards that apply (Microsoft v. Proxyconn). The relationship between administrative challenges and related litigation is also an evolving area (ePlus v. Lawson Software).
Trade secret theft is a hot topic among companies today. Winston & Strawn attorneys David Enzminger, Sheryl Falk, and John Keville have successfully prosecuted trade secret cases across the US. In this dynamic presentation, these experienced attorneys shared practical advice to help you navigate your trade secret issues.
The slides are about the basic law on financial crimes very clearly explain cheating, difference between 417 IPC and 420 IPC ,its ingredients, ingredients of major sections in IPC and I T Act that deals with financial fraud etc.
A review of insider trading law, with emphasis on its application to recent cases involving hedge funds. Reviews Preet Bharara’s scorecard, the Galleon case, materiality and the “Mosaic Theory," and tipping chains.
What You Need to Know About Insider TradingPaul Hastings
In this powerpoint, Paul Hastings partner Paul Monnin and associates Eric Stolze and Andrea Pearson cover theories of insider trading liability; evidence collection: how investigations begin, heightened stakes, mobile devices and BYOD, and feasibility; liability; and more.
www.paulhastings.com
The Trade Secrets Directive came into force in July 2016 and member states will have to implement it before July 2018. Irrespective of Brexit, it is going to have an impact on how businesses protect their confidential information. This webinar discusses key points that companies should be aware of and practical tips about how to protect their trade secrets as a result of the Directive.
Fraud in government-funded programs can occur anywhere – – Medicare fraud, defense contracting fraud, GSA Schedules and other types of government contracting fraud. When an individual sues on behalf of the United States to recover fraudulently obtained funds, this is known as qui tam whistleblower litigation.
Content Material of Anti-Bribery & Anti-Corruption Master Class Presented at 2nd African Mining Security Summit at The Sandton Hilton Hotel, Johannesburg on 17 April 2015.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
RIGHT TO INFORMATION WHY?
Democracy requires an informed citizenry.
Transparency of information vital to its functioning.
To contain corruption
Re-define larger framework of Accountability, Democracy, Ethics and Rights.
Under-pins administrative reforms.
Enables Human Rights to be realized.
Harmonize conflicting interests.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
The RTI bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2004.
It was passed by both Houses of the Parliament in may 2005.
The assent of the President was received on 15th June 2005 and act was notified in the Gazette of India on 21st June 2005.
The RTI act has been operational on 12th October 2005 after completion of 120 days from the date of Presidential assent.
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT
Maximum Disclosures
Duty to Publish
Suo motu and web based disclosures
Duty to Furnish
PIO and Deemed PIO
Exemption – As per section 8 and 9 of the Act.
Covers Private Body & Third Party Information
Penalty for defiance.
Independent and Non-judicial appellate mechanism
Empowerment of citizens
DEFINITION OF “INFORMATION” {SECTION 2 (f) & 2(j) of RTI Act, 2005}
Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.
What is a Public Authority?
“Public Authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted— (a)by or under the Constitution; (b)by any other law made by Parliament; (c)by any other law made by State Legislature; (d)by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any— (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
A public authority has to fulfill certain obligations as per RTI Act – 2005.
Marta Paul spoke on recent developments in US trademark law at the August practice group lunch. Topics included the Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam on “disparaging” trademarks, as well as how the USPTO is handling similar parts of the trademark statute in the wake of the decision. More news from the USPTO included a new examination guideline on “merely informational matter” and recent cases from the TTAB. Finally, Marta discussed a recent precedential decision from the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, In re I.AM.SYMBOLIC, LLC, involving likelihood of confusion and the effect of subject matter limitations in the identifications of goods or services used in trademark applications.
Topics covered in this patent prosecution lunch presentation include information about newly appointed Federal Circuit Judge Kara Stoll and the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system. In addition, the presentation describes recent problems of accessing Private PAIR/EFS Web using the Google Chrome browser as well as how to change an entity size in Private PAIR. It also discusses the new Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot program as well as the Collaborative Search Pilot Programs (CSP) between the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), and Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Some recent decisions concerning divisional applications and their impact on the obviousness type double patenting rejections along with patent term adjustment are further analyzed.
The following presentation describes a recently passed, and soon to be signed, Indiana law regarding how to address the problem of bad-faith assertions of patent infringement by patent assertion entities, sometimes referred to as "patent trolls." The law provides a definition of what constitutes bad faith assertion of patent infringement as well as gives guidance on basic information that is required for patent cease and desist or demand letters. It also provides procedures for having the entity post a pre-trial bond and/or be subject to damages or other remedies for bad faith assertion of patent infringement.
The presentation provides some background information about intellectual property as related to businesses and how the intellectual property can be used as a security interest or collateral for obtaining financing for businesses.
WINDING UP of COMPANY, Modes of DissolutionKHURRAMWALI
Winding up, also known as liquidation, refers to the legal and financial process of dissolving a company. It involves ceasing operations, selling assets, settling debts, and ultimately removing the company from the official business registry.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of winding up:
Reasons for Winding Up:
Insolvency: This is the most common reason, where the company cannot pay its debts. Creditors may initiate a compulsory winding up to recover their dues.
Voluntary Closure: The owners may decide to close the company due to reasons like reaching business goals, facing losses, or merging with another company.
Deadlock: If shareholders or directors cannot agree on how to run the company, a court may order a winding up.
Types of Winding Up:
Voluntary Winding Up: This is initiated by the company's shareholders through a resolution passed by a majority vote. There are two main types:
Members' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is solvent (has enough assets to pay off its debts) and shareholders will receive any remaining assets after debts are settled.
Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is insolvent and creditors will be prioritized in receiving payment from the sale of assets.
Compulsory Winding Up: This is initiated by a court order, typically at the request of creditors, government agencies, or even by the company itself if it's insolvent.
Process of Winding Up:
Appointment of Liquidator: A qualified professional is appointed to oversee the winding-up process. They are responsible for selling assets, paying off debts, and distributing any remaining funds.
Cease Trading: The company stops its regular business operations.
Notification of Creditors: Creditors are informed about the winding up and invited to submit their claims.
Sale of Assets: The company's assets are sold to generate cash to pay off creditors.
Payment of Debts: Creditors are paid according to a set order of priority, with secured creditors receiving payment before unsecured creditors.
Distribution to Shareholders: If there are any remaining funds after all debts are settled, they are distributed to shareholders according to their ownership stake.
Dissolution: Once all claims are settled and distributions made, the company is officially dissolved and removed from the business register.
Impact of Winding Up:
Employees: Employees will likely lose their jobs during the winding-up process.
Creditors: Creditors may not recover their debts in full, especially if the company is insolvent.
Shareholders: Shareholders may not receive any payout if the company's debts exceed its assets.
Winding up is a complex legal and financial process that can have significant consequences for all parties involved. It's important to seek professional legal and financial advice when considering winding up a company.
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
PRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW (SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Precedent, or stare decisis, is a cornerstone of common law systems where past judicial decisions guide future cases, ensuring consistency and predictability in the legal system. Binding precedents from higher courts must be followed by lower courts, while persuasive precedents may influence but are not obligatory. This principle promotes fairness and efficiency, allowing for the evolution of the law as higher courts can overrule outdated decisions. Despite criticisms of rigidity and complexity, precedent ensures similar cases are treated alike, balancing stability with flexibility in judicial decision-making.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
Introducing New Government Regulation on Toll Road.pdfAHRP Law Firm
For nearly two decades, Government Regulation Number 15 of 2005 on Toll Roads ("GR No. 15/2005") has served as the cornerstone of toll road legislation. However, with the emergence of various new developments and legal requirements, the Government has enacted Government Regulation Number 23 of 2024 on Toll Roads to replace GR No. 15/2005. This new regulation introduces several provisions impacting toll business entities and toll road users. Find out more out insights about this topic in our Legal Brief publication.
DNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptxpatrons legal
Get insights into DNA testing and its application in civil and criminal matters. Find out how it contributes to fair and accurate legal proceedings. For more information: https://www.patronslegal.com/criminal-litigation.html
2. DTSA of 2016
• Amends federal law to create a cause of
action for trade secret misappropriation.
• Does not preempt state laws in this field.
• Creates a three-year statute of limitations for
bringing federal trade secret misappropriation
claims.
3. “misappropriation” Defined
Acquisition of a trade secret of another who
knows or has reason to know that the trade
secret was acquired by improper means or
disclosure of a trade secret of another without
express or implied consent by a person who:
(i) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or
had reason to know that the knowledge of the
trade secret was:
4. (a)derived from or through a person who owed a
duty to maintain the secrecy of the trade
secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or
(b)acquired under circumstances giving rise to a
duty to maintain the secrecy of the trade
secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or
(c) derived from or through a person who owed a
duty to the person seeking relief to maintain
the secret of the trade secret or limit the use
of the trade secret; or
5. (ii) before a material change of the position of
the person, knew or had reason to know that (i)
the trade secret was a trade secret; and (ii)
knowledge of the trade secret had been
acquired by accident or mistake.
6. “improper means” Defined
(A) includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation,
breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to
maintain secrecy, or espionage through
electronic or other means; and
(B) does not include reverse engineering,
independent derivation or any other lawful
means of the acquisition.
7. Remedies
• Civil seizure
• Injunction to prevent any actual or threatened
misappropriation
• Damages for actual loss, damages or any
unjust enrichment, or reasonable royalty
• Damages are doubled if the trade secret is
willfully and maliciously misappropriated
8. Attorney Fees
• Available to the prevailing party if the trade
secret was willfully and maliciously
misappropriated
• Available if the claim of misappropriate is
made in bad faith, which may be established
by circumstantial evidence
• Available if the motion to terminate an
inunction is made or opposed in bad faith.