A good article in BNA by Eric W. Schweibenz and Lisa M.
Mandrusiak argues that the recent trend in trade secret
litigation has been to require plaintiffs to state with
specificity early in litigation what trade secrets
they claim the defendants stole. This prevents
"fishing expeditions," where plaintiffs bring vague
claims for misappropriation of trade secrets in the hope that
they'll find something solid when they obtain documents and
other information from defendants in discovery. It also
helps defendants decide what is relevant when
responding to discovery requests from plaintiffs
and helps defendants prepare a defense. Ultimately, the
requirement can help resolve cases faster because the defendants
know earlier what the case is about and the strength of their
This requirement should make employers that are considering
suing former employees for misappropriation of trade secrets think
before they file. I've
written about this before, but it bears repeating: if an
employer is going to accuse an employee of stealing trade
secrets, it better have a good idea of what those trade
secrets are. If the employer doesn't, that fact can
really slow down, and even stop, a case before it really
gets started, and the employer will lose a good deal of credibility
in the judge's eyes.
To view Foley Hoag's Massachusetts Noncompete Law
Blog please click
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
As is well known, patent trolls often threaten dozens of alleged infringers in the hope of scoring quick license fees from those who understandably prefer to provide a modest payoff, thereby avoiding expensive and protracted litigation.
In order to best protect the IP rights of a U.S. company seeking to produce goods through a Chinese manufacturer by providing a protected design, the U.S. company needs to take actions even before the contracting stages.
On November 12, 2012, the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of issued the Draft Rules on Inventor-Employee Inventions for public comment, and this article seeks to reconcile the different provisions between the Implementing Rules and the Draft Rules.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of seven film studios finding that the defendant induced third parties to download infringing copies of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.