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.
A data breach is a business crisis. What should you do?
Learn first-hand as Foley Hoag LLP and PwC walk you through the practical and legal aspects of responding to a data security incident. From understanding how to be prepared to thinking through best practices, this webinar is designed to help you get a handle on an emergency that every business must confront.
Foley Hoag will present a 60-minute webinar onWednesday, May 3 at 12:30 pm EDT offering guidance for in-house counsel regarding the different types of intellectual property that may protect product configurations and packaging in the United States, and the interplay among these different forms of IP, their applicability, and their limitations.
Product configuration and packaging play an integral part in consumer choice and can often set a particular product apart from its competition on the store shelf. Because companies heavily invest in creating unique product designs and packaging that encourage brand association, business owners should also consider protecting those investments as intellectual property.
Join NECEC— the premier voice of businesses building a world-class clean energy hub in the Northeast—and Foley Hoag’s Energy and Cleantech practice for a not-to-be-missed discussion with offshore wind developers, leading public officials, investors and experts at the cutting edge of the Northeast’s emerging offshore wind market.
After decades of speculation about offshore wind’s future in the United States, the industry that has long powered grids in Europe has finally arrived in the Northeast. In the last year America’s first offshore wind project--off the coast of Rhode Island--started spinning and delivering power to the grid, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law a bill authorizing the procurement of 1,600 megawatts of offshore wind, and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo committed to 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind off the coast of New York by 2030. Meanwhile, major utilities have announced agreements with developers to purchase energy generated from the projects planned for the eastern seaboard.
In Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., No. 15-2078 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the patentee Wasica Finance discovered, among other things, the importance of using consistent terminology in the patent specification and claims.
While under attack for several years now, the patent infringement defense of laches was dealt a serious, and likely final, blow by the recent Supreme Court case of SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby Products LLC et al.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court's judgment of infringement and summary judgment for non-infringement of The Medicines Company's ("MedCo") patents-in-suit.
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).