Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Citcon USA, LLC v. RiverPay Inc., No. 20-16929, 2022 WL 287563 (9th Cir. Jan 31, 2022), affirming a district court's denial of an injunction following a finding of trade secret misappropriation. While the opinion is designated as unpublished — and therefore not precedential — the panel's reasoning sheds light on an important issue in trade secrets remedies.
Intellectual property practitioners are no doubt familiar with the Supreme Court's watershed decision in eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006). That decision overturned a line of Federal Circuit authority holding that permanent injunctions should issue as a matter of course in the presence of patent infringement. While acknowledging that patents grant the right to exclude others from practicing the patented invention, the Supreme Court held that a patentee nonetheless must satisfy the traditional four-factor equitable test for injunctive relief, including a showing of irreparable harm. Similarly, in Winter v. Natural Resource Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), the Supreme Court instructed that plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish a likelihood of irreparable injury.
The Ninth Circuit has extended the reasoning of eBay and Winter into other fields of intellectual property. For example, it has rejected the presumption of irreparable harm for copyright infringement and trademark infringement (although the Trademark Modernization Act has now reintroduced a statutory rebuttable presumption of harm). But the Ninth Circuit has been largely silent on this presumption for trade secrets misappropriation. The exception was an unpublished decision issued shortly after eBay, upholding a denial of preliminary injunction in a trade secret case where the lower court did not apply a presumption of harm.
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.
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.
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.
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?