Primer and Comment on The Defense Trade Secrets Act.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Defense Trade Secrets Act, Intellectual Property

≈ Comments Off on Primer and Comment on The Defense Trade Secrets Act.

Tags

David S. Almeling, Defense Trade Secrets Act, Economic Espionage Act, Intellectual Property, Patently-O Blog

Guest Post: Defend Trade Secrets Act — A Primer, an Endorsement, and a Criticism, Guest Post by David S. Almeling (partner of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, specializing in patent and trade secret litigation), Patently-O Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kdmurjf

It’s been an exciting month for trade secret law. Senators Christopher Coons (D-Delaware) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced the Defend Trade Secrets Act, a bill that would, for the first time, provide a federal right of civil action for trade secret theft. And the Judiciary Committee held a hearing during which speakers expressed support for the DTSA, including Eli Lilly’s VP and General Patent Counsel, Douglas Norman, who stated that the DTSA ‘will establish the gold standard for national trade secret laws globally.’

The DTSA is a game changer. If enacted, it would constitute the most dramatic rethinking of trade secret law since 1979, when the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved a model statute called the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Since then, 48 states have adopted the UTSA in some form, replacing their common-law regimes with statutory ones.

The DTSA isn’t perfect — I’ll explain why in a moment — but it’s the best bill of its kind introduced to date, and it should be enacted. . . .

Are Patent Rights A Marital Asset?

10 Saturday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Divorce, Family Law, Intellectual Property, Marital Asset, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on Are Patent Rights A Marital Asset?

Tags

Dennis Crouch, Divorce, Family Law, Infringement, Intellectual Property, Marital Asset, Patent, Patently-O Blog

Patent Rights are a Marital Asset and Non-Inventing Spouse is a Co-Owner, by Dennis Crouch, Patently-O Blog

http://bit.ly/1mce19e

James Taylor v Taylor Made Plastics (Fed. Cir. 2014)

I should note here that this case is neither about the musician or the golf club company. Rather, it is about the now fractured Taylor family and their patented pipe plugs. I discussed the district court decision earlier here.

Several years ago James T. invented storm drain equipment and obtained a patent in his name only. U.S. Patent No. 5,806,566. When he and his wife Mary T. later divorced, the divorce court ordered “equitable distribution of marital property” with Mary T. receiving 60% of proceeds from the patent and James T. receiving 40%. The divorce court seemingly only dealt with equitable title in the form of rights-to-proceeds and not with legal title to the patent itself. And, in particular, the divorce court did not identify who held the exclusive rights associated with the patent. . . .

The Meaning of “Intellectual Property”

23 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Intellectual Property, Patent Law, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Dennis Crouch, Intellectual Property, Patently-O Blog, Trade Secrets

The Meaning Of “Intellectual Property,” by Dennis Crouch’s Patently-O Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lcag5xs

Energy Recovery, Inc. v. Hauge (Fed. Cir. 2014) 13-1515.Opinion.3-18-2014.1– Panel: Rader, Reyna, and Wallach (author).

At the heart of this case lies the question of ‘what is intellectual property?’ Here, the answer has more than philosophical implications: a finding of contempt hinges on it.