Access Plus Similarity Starts the Clock for Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims
Inzer C. Ni & Jordan A. DeOrio
A trade secret misappropriation claim accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known facts sufficient to plead misappropriation as evidenced by access to the trade secrets and similarities between those secrets and the competing product.
Reap What You Sow: Industry-Specific Applications of Data Processing Do Not Survive § 101
Patents claiming data collection, processing, and transmission using generic computer components are patent-ineligible abstract ideas under § 101, even when narrowed to a specific industry or use.
Skinny Labels at the Supreme Court: Carving Out Room for Generics to Breathe
Ari Feinstein & Zoe E. Vikstrom
To be adequately pled, induced infringement claims must rest on affirmative acts encouraging infringement, not omissions, inactions, roundabout theories, or vague statements.
When ‘Any Patent’ Means No Patent: Federal Circuit Reverses Non-Specific Verdict
Brian C. Barnes & Sophia F. Zahn
A verdict form that asks a single question as to whether the defendant infringed any asserted claim is improper because it does not ensure a unanimous jury finding of infringement as to each asserted patent.
What the USPTO’s New 30-Day Director Review Deadline for Decisions Instituting Trial Means for PTAB Petitioners and Patent Owners
In a precedential decision in Light & Wonder, Inc. v. Evolution Malta Ltd., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Squires extended the deadline for requesting Director Review of decisions granting institution of inter partes reviews/post-grant reviews from 14 to 30 days. He may further extend the deadline in exceptional circumstances, such as where the claims are invalidated or dismissed, or a Sotera stipulation is violated in litigation.
The Supreme Court Reins in ISP Copyright Liability in Cox Communications v. Sony Music
Jacob R. Rosenbaum & Stella B. Haynes Kiehn
In Cox Communications v. Sony Music, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that an internet service provider (ISP) cannot be held liable for contributory copyright infringement based on knowledge alone that some subscribers use its service to infringe copyrights. The decision reaffirms that secondary copyright liability requires proof of intent, established only through inducement of infringement or the tailoring of a service for infringing purposes, with potential implications for technology companies, social media platforms, and generative AI services.
Subscribe for News and Updates