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 all aspects of business inexorably shift toward online, it is not surprising that intellectual property infringement, cybersquatting, and related internet abuses abound. Luckily, there are various procedures available by which aggrieved companies can seek relief short of litigation.
Foley Hoag will present a 60-minute webinar on Thursday, March 16 at 12:30 pm EDT offering guidance for in-house counsel regarding internet takedowns and domain name disputes, including identifying which procedures are available in which situations, along with the nuts and bolts of domain name disputes and complaint procedures on popular platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Yelp.
Though politics ruled the headlines in 2016, the year still brought big changes in intellectual property law and its application, most notably in patent subject matter eligibility, inter partes review institution and appeal and design patent damages.
Chanel, a billion-dollar fashion company that produces and sells luxury consumer products, identifies its products by the "Chanel" trademark and the "CC Monogram" trademark, which consists of two interlocking...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).