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 17

Financial Gain Not Required to Prevail in Trade Secret Theft Claim
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • March 30 2016

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated a district court decision awarding substantial restitution for trade secret theft


D.C. Circuit holds restitution must be based on loss of victim, not defendant’s gain
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 27 2012

Addressing for the first time the issue of whether restitution (in the context of pirated copyrighted software) under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act


Standing under California 17200 only requires injury from business practice
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2011

Drawing upon recent California Supreme Court rulings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a California federal district court’s dismissal of claims under the state’s unfair competition law, finding the court had wrongly dismissed the claims for lack of standing.


California Supreme Court expands ability to sue over deceptive product labels
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • February 28 2011

The Supreme Court of California recently addressed a fundamental issue of standing in connection with California's unfair competition and false advertising laws, namely the requirement that a plaintiff must have "lost money or property" in order to sue.


Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd: breach of service agreement, restitution and “Wrotham Park” damages
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • November 30 2010

Mr Justice Stadlen in Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd 2010 EWHC 2373 (QB), has found that Force India Formula One Team Ltd was in breach of its contract with Giedo Van der Garde by not providing him with the minimum number of driving kilometres for which Mr Van der Garde had paid US$3 million in the hope of gaining enough experience to win a Formula One driving seat.


Proactive Sports Management Ltd v Wayne Rooney: image rights representation agreement and restraint of trade
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • September 28 2010

In Proactive Sports Management Ltd v Wayne Rooney 2010 EWHC 1807 (QB), the High Court of England and Wales has held that an Image Rights Representation Agreement made between Proactive Sports Management Ltd and Stoneygate 48 Ltd, the company to which Wayne Rooney had assigned his image rights, was unenforceable as it was in restraint of trade.


New compliance plan effectiveness guidelines
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 3 2010

The board's compliance committee should consider amending the existing corporate compliance plan to accommodate the new guidelines, and to make related changes in other key officer-to-board reporting relationships.


New compliance plan effectiveness proposals
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 27 2010

The proposed amendments serve as a reminder that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines' "effective compliance plan" criteria remain living, breathing and subject to periodic modification.


Implication of contract: necessity and restitution
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • January 15 2010

A recent decision from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, concerning a dispute in which one party supplied services to another in contemplation of signing a formal written contract, highlights the courts’ reluctance to find that parties entered into a binding agreement by conduct.


Application for restitution out of time: communication to representative
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • November 30 2009

In Evets Corp v OHIM joined cases T-2008 and T-2108, the Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled that where an applicant for a Community Trade Mark (CTM) appoints a representative, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) is entitled to treat communication with that representative as communication with the applicant.