We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Stephen M. Yu McDermott Will & Emery

Results 1 to 5 of 5



Economic Espionage Act exposed *

USA - January 31 2013
Addressing what the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee referred to as a "dangerous loophole that demands our attention," President Obama…


Copyright protection for architect’s expression *

USA - September 28 2012
Addressing for the first time whether an architectural drawing may receive copyright protection even if it lacks the level of detail required for architectural works under the 1990 Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that such architectural drawings may still be protected as “pictorial, graphic, [or] sculptural works” under 17 U.S.C.§ 102(a)(5) of the 1976 Copyright Act.


Ex-employee escapes Economic Espionage Act *

USA - May 30 2012
Addressing for the first time the Economic Espionage Act in a case involving stolen high-frequency-trading source code, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a computer programmer’s theft and transfer of an employer’s proprietary source code did not constitute a criminal offense under either the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) or the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA).


Federal Circuit rattles Sony by vacating vibrating controller claim construction. *

USA - February 29 2012
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s stipulated judgment of non-infringement, entered following Markman, after finding that the district court improperly limited claim terms by departing from the plain and ordinary meaning rule.


“Irreconcilably inconsistent” jury verdicts require a new trial *

USA - March 31 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s final judgment and remanded the case for a new trial after a jury returned “irreconcilably inconsistent” verdicts.