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

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 33

Combining disclosed technology can be a protectable trade secret

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that, under Texas law, unique combinations of previously disclosed elements can constitute a trade secret

Software compilation not a trade secret under state law

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 29 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a grant of summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract against defendant Sentia Group and several former employees of the plaintiff

ALJ Rogers denies respondent's motion to terminate based on consent order

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 22 2011

On March 22, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. denied Respondent Yongkang Boyu Auto Motor Company’s motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-755, Certain Starter Motors and Alternators, based on a proposed consent order Yongkang Boyu filed

Customer ZIP codes largely off limits in California credit card transactions

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 22 2011

The Supreme Court of California held that it is a violation of California law for businesses to request and record a credit card holder's ZIP code in connection with credit card transactions

NY court rules parent corporations and their officers may be bound by their subsidiaries’ arbitration agreements

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 8 2011

In January 2011, the Southern District of New York ruled that a parent corporation, as well as its officers and directors, may, in certain circumstances, be bound by an arbitration agreement entered into by its subsidiary

U.S. company compelled to produce discovery for use in German trade secret case

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2011

Considering whether a foreign plaintiff could force a U.S. based-defendant to produce documents for use in a trade secret case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh held that plaintiff could employ American law to require the production of documents, although the case was pending in Germany

Executive temporary injunction against new employment may be needed to prevent “likely” disclosure

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 27 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction barring a senior bakery executive from beginning employment with a competitor, finding that the “likely” disclosure of bakery’s trade secrets to the new employer was sufficient harm to support the injunction

Deloitte decision protects work product disclosed to independent auditor

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2010

D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in United States v. Deloitte LLP, et. al. questions Textron and rejects government motion to compel work product disclosed to an independent auditor

Unprotected information can not become a trade secret simply by changing the storage medium

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the printouts from an automated computer system did not qualify as trade secrets because the printouts contained the same information available in the unprotected policyholder files

Inventorship claims out of the rough; misappropriation claims suffer bogey

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, relying on the doctrine of res judicata, affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas’ dismissal of plaintiff’s misappropriation claims but reversed the district court’s dismissal of inventorship claims, finding lack of privity between the plaintiffs in the present suit and the plaintiff in the former suit