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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 93

保密协议并非万无一失
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • May 9 2015

事实表明公司竭力保护自己的知识产权数年 以来作为保护的手段公司越来越多地使用保 密协议来达到目的最近联邦索赔法院对"自由弹药诉美国"一案的判决对由美国政府人员 签署的保密协议的有效性提出了严重质疑 原则上"自由弹药"是一起根据美国法典第


Those NDAs may not be worth the paper they are written on
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • March 24 2015

It is a given that companies strive to protect their intellectual property. Over the years, as an instrument of that protection, companies have made


BONDing with NPE's - the requirement for security for costs or expenses under Section 1030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • March 29 2013

A little used and often overlooked provision of the California Code of Civil Procedure recently played an important role in three recent cases


The Kardashian Sears marriage causes the girls to end up in court
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • August 22 2011

Kim Kardashian filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Old Navy for using a modelactress that allegedly looks like her and calls her to mind in its commercials


Supreme Court rejects single entity treatment for the National Football League's licensing activities
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • August 3 2010

On May 24, 2010, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Seventh Circuit and held that because the 32 teams of the NFL are independent centers of decision-making and could potentially compete with each other for the licensing of their separate intellectual property, “the NFL’s licensing activities constitute concerted action that is not categorically beyond the coverage of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.”


California Court of Appeal clarifies what constitutes "use" of a trade secret
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • June 21 2010

In a recent case, Silvaco Data Systems v Intel Corp, 184 Cal App 4th 210 (April 29, 2010), the California Court of Appeal clarified what constitutes use of a trade secret in the software context


FTC gets shut down - once again - in its bid to change how courts view reverse payment settlements
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • June 3 2010

As previously reported on this blog, in January 2009, the Federal Trade Commission launched its latest challenge to the legality of reverse payment settlements in the pharmaceutical industry, this time directed at two settlements involving the brand-name drug AndroGel


California court takes on trade-secret preemption of other civil claims
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • May 21 2010

Recently, a California court of appeal took up an issue that is more often examined by federal courts than state courts: trade-secret preemption of related tort claims


Supreme Court grants certiorari better to define the first sale doctrine
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2010

On April 19th, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether, in the context of a copyright infringement claim, the first sale doctrine applies to imported goods manufactured abroad


District court holds gene sequences not patentable subject matter
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • April 1 2010

On March 29, 2010, in the highly publicized and closely watched case of Association for Molecular Pathology, et al v. U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al. (real parties in interest patent holders Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation), the District Court in the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and held that 15 claims in Myriad’s 7 patents relating to human BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (Breast Cancer Susceptibility genes 1 and 2) (collectively “BRCA12”) are invalid because they claim non-patentable subject matter