Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
After years of discussion, Congress recently enacted federal legislation establishing a private right of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, vesting the federal courts with original jurisdiction over the litigation of such claims. On April 27, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to send the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) to President Obama for his signature. This vote followed the Senate's passage of the bill earlier in April by a vote of 87-0. After signaling his support for some time, the President signed the bill into law May 11.
With this legislation, Congress recognized the growing importance of trade secrets to the U.S. economy and has given businesses, such as those in the entertainment industries, confronted with trade secret theft another powerful weapon to secure injunctive relief and damages by granting federal question jurisdiction over trade secret misappropriation claims without the need for diversity or supplemental federal jurisdiction.
While protecting trade secrets has been a matter of state statute, common law and contract for decades, enactment of the DTSA places trade secrets on a par with patents, copyrights and trademarks, which have long been subjects of federal statute and litigation in federal courts. In addition, creating a federal cause of action provides global and national plaintiffs with a more uniform structure for discovery and the opportunity to develop more uniform federal case law in this area.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.