22
03
2018
Social Aware blog: law and business of social media
Hywote Taye & John Delaney on March 20, 2018
Does a search engine operator have to delist websites hosting, without authorization, your trade secret materials or other intellectual property? The answer may depend on where you sue—just ask Google. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently handed the company a victory over plaintiff Equustek Solutions Inc. in what has turned into an international battle where physical borders can have very real consequences on the Internet.
The dispute began when a rival company, Datalink, allegedly misappropriated Equustek’s trade secrets in developing competing products. Equustek also alleged that Datalink misled customers who thought they were buying Equustek products. In 2012, Equustek obtained numerous court orders in Canada against Datalink. Datalink refused to comply, and Canadian court issued an arrest warrant for the primary defendant, who has yet to be apprehended.
In September 2012, Equustek asked Google to delist search results for Datalink; Google declined this request. Equustek then sought a court order against Google in Canada and prevailed, resulting in Google removing 300 Datalink websites from search results generated by the Canadian version of its site, located at www.google.ca. Google, however, did not take similar steps with respect to U.S. and other non-Canadian versions of its site, so the Datalink websites continued to appear in search results conducted by users outside of Canada.
Equustek returned to the Canadian court, this time to seek an order compelling Google to remove the Datalink-related search results globally so that Datalink results would not appear for any Google users, regardless of their location. Equustek once again prevailed, and Google appealed to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. That court, and later the Supreme Court of Canada, affirmed the trial court’s order.
Google then brought the battle to the United States; in July 2017, it commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that the Canadian court order cannot be enforced in the United States and an injunction against the enforcement of such order. (Equustek did not submit an opposition brief.)
In support of its preliminary injunction motion, Google’s primary arguments were that the Canadian order (1) ignores the Communication Decency Act’s immunity for interactive service providers (2) directly conflicts with the First Amendment and (3) violates principles of international comity.
more
The content in this post was found at https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2018/03/20/the-coming-border-wars-u-s-court-decision-refusing-to-enforce-canadian-court-order-highlights-the-growing-balkanization-of-the-internet/
Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com.
Powered by WPeMatico
Comments : Comments Off on The Coming Border Wars: U.S. Court Decision Refusing to Enforce Canadian Court Order Highlights the Growing Balkanization of the Internet
Categories : defamation safe harbor (cda), Digital IP Torts, International IP Law, Jurisdiction, Trade Secrets
14
02
2018
Chicago, IL-based wireless power solutions provider NuCurrent filed a complaint alleging trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement against Korean tech giant Samsung Electronics (KRX:005930). The case, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, alleges that wireless charging technologies incorporated by Samsung into their Galaxy S7 and S8 product lines copies technology which was presented to them by NuCurrent under the terms of a confidentiality agreement.
more
The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/02/11/nucurrent-alleges-patent-infringement-samsung-feigns-interest/id=93485/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : non-disclosure agreements, Patent, Trade Secrets
10
02
2018
Earlier today Alphabet subsidiary Waymo settled with Uber in the midst of a trade secret infringement trial. This lawsuit originated when Waymo brought suit against Uber in 2017, alleging that a former Waymo engineer Anthony Levandowski, who was hired by Uber to lead Uber’s self-driving car project, took with him thousands of confidential documents… The U.S. Department of Justice is conducting a separate, criminal investigation into the alleged theft of trade secrets. Levandowski has claimed a Fifth Amendment privilege and has not spoken about the events leading to this dispute.
more
The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/02/09/uber-settles-trade-secret-waymo/id=93563/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Trade Secrets
3
02
2018
The overlap between sovereign immunity and IP issues is not something that comes up all of the time. However, when it does, the impact of the immunity can be significant. The law for certain matters, such as lawsuits in Federal court, is fairly well resolved. However, its application when new procedures are made available, such as for IPRs which were established in 2012, has provided new challenges and opportunities… So can the Federal or State government be sued for infringement under Federal patent, trademark, or copyright law? The answer often depends on the particular facts and specific legal issues of a dispute. That said, in most cases the answer is Yes for the U.S. Government and No for states and Tribal Nations, unless they have taken a specific action to waive immunity for that matter. A brief summary follows.
more
The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/02/01/ip-infringement-sovereign-immunity/id=93050/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Copyright, General IP Legislation Processes, IP Philosophies and History, Patent, Trade Secrets, Trademarks
27
01
2018
In Seyfarth’s first webinar in its 2018 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Michael Wexler, Robert Milligan, and Joshua Salinas presented 2017 National Year In Review: What You Need to Know About the Recent Cases/Developments in Trade Secrets, Non-Compete, and Computer Fraud Law. The panel reviewed noteworthy cases and other legal developments from across the nation over the last year in the areas of trade secrets and data theft, non-competes and other restrictive covenants, and computer fraud. Plus, they provided their predictions for what to watch for in 2018.
As a conclusion to this well-received webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:
- While the Defend Trade Secrets Act provides for an ex parte seizure order, courts have been very unwilling to provide such relief except in extraordinary circumstances.
- In light of recent state laws and appellate court decisions at both the federal and state level in 2017, choice of venue and choice of law provisions must be carefully considered and strategically implemented.
- The ABA’s May 4, 2017, Ethics Opinion encourages lawyers to have an open exchange of communication with their clients about the securities measures their firms are taking to safeguard the clients’ confidential information.
more
The content in this post was found at https://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2018/01/articles/trade-secrets/webinar-recap-2017-national-year-in-review-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-recent-cases-developments-in-trade-secrets-non-compete-and-computer-fraud-law/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : non-competition agreements, non-disclosure agreements, Trade Secrets
25
01
2018
Proskauer
1-24-18
Jeffrey Neuburger
Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit issued a noteworthy ruling in a dispute between an enterprise software licensor and a third-party support provider. The case is particularly important as it addresses the common practice of using automated means to download information (in this case, software) from websites in contravention of website terms and conditions. Also, the case examines and interprets fairly “standard” software licensing language in light of evolving business practices in the software industry. (Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., No. 16-16832 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2018)).
more
The content in this post was found at https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2018/01/24/ninth-circuit-issues-important-decision-on-software-licensing-practices-and-web-scraping/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Copyright, Digital Rights Management, Fair Use, Terms of Service, Trade Secrets
23
01
2018
In a blog post last month, Google announced that it would extend certain commitments it made to the FTC in 2012 that were set to expire relating to, among other things, the scraping of third-party content for use on certain Google “vertical search” properties such as Google Shopping. The announcement came days before the commitments were set to expire on December 27th and months after Yelp had claimed that Google was not living up to its promises by allegedly scraping Yelp local business photos for use in certain Google results (e.g., local business listings).
more
The content in this post was found at https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2018/01/22/google-extends-commitments-with-the-ftc-over-crawling-of-third-party-content-for-use-in-own-vertical-sites/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Copyright, Trade Secrets
5
01
2018
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Yeah, right.[1]
Most businesses think protecting their intellectual property is their own responsibility, and it is. But what about when your intellectual property rights are violated by an evildoer? Who are you going to call? While your obvious choice will be the law firm sponsoring this blog, you might also be able to get help from your local prosecutor.
Both State Attorneys General and Federal Prosecutors have tools at their disposal that let them bring the full force of the government to your side—when they are motivated to do so. Speaking at a State Fraud & Prevention Summit in Atlanta recently, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr announced how his office is available to take action on cybersecurity and data breach fraud cases, and he even pointed to several Assistant AGs in the audience who were there and ready to help.[2] Carr said his state’s emphasis on protecting data privacy and security is enhanced by the U.S. Army recently announcing that its new Cyber Command Headquarters (ARCYBER) will be located in Georgia.[3] Other states have similarly dedicated AGs ready to help, and sometimes you can even get local prosecutors to take interest in your case.
At the federal level, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has a “Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section” (CCIPS) specifically devoted to combating white collar computer and intellectual property crimes. Indeed, the DOJ has several statutes at its disposal to combat such crimes. They include the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1831, the Theft of Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1832, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and the new Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”). These laws provide punishments that include fines in the millions of dollars (which can be a multiple of the value of trade secrets stolen) and prison sentences ranging from 10–20 years to life under certain circumstances.
more
The content in this post was found at https://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2017/04/articles/intellectual-property/enlisting-government-help-to-protect-your-trade-secrets/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Trade Secrets
