Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In France, like in the U.S., covenants not to compete are not prohibited per se. They are unlawful only if they create unreasonable restraints upon employees' freedom to work. In the same way, Article 340 of the Swiss Code of Obligations and Article 2125 of the Italian Civil Code do no prohibit employment agreements that limit employees' rights to perform their activities to subsequent employers, provided that the scope of the restrictions do not prevent employees from finding an alternate job.
However, in the international arena, U.S. employers should refrain from seeking to blindly impose the “American way” of drafting and implementing restrictive covenants in an attempt to harmonize their employees' working conditions all over the world. Indeed, there is simply no such a thing as a standard restrictive covenant that could be implemented whatever the location of the workplace in the world. More generally, U.S. companies that choose to “go global” should never forget that employment laws in the international arena significantly differ according to the legal, social, political and economic background in each country. While employment relationships in the U.S. are governed by private arrangements that are voluntarily entered into between employers and employees, they generally consist, in other industrialized countries, of a comprehensive and paternalistic set of legal rules the main purpose of which are to protect employees in their subordinate relations vis-'-vis their employers. Consequently, most employment laws in industrialized countries and in particular in Western Europe are more employee-friendly than U.S. employment law (including California law).
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
Instead of eliminating legal jobs, generative AI can be transformative for the in-house role by stripping away repetitive tasks and giving lawyers room to focus on higher-value work.
A trademark battle that pitted technology giant OpenAI against a company known as Open AI (note the space between the terms) has resulted in a summary judgment that has ordered the smaller enterprise to cease use of the name and its prized internet real estate, open.ai.
In late July, two important decisions came down from courts in the Northern District of California regarding the unauthorized use of copyrighted material for the training of large language models. No real consensus has emerged as to the effect they will have on the broader AI litigation landscape.
Protectable rights are created the same way a successful brand is established — linking your Mark and your company’s offering in the minds of the consumer is a must. The good news? Regardless of your company’s size or marketing budget, this necessary connection can be achieved.
Just three months ago, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded existing guidelines governing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) discretion to deny petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) when parallel litigation is already pending in federal district court or the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Acting Director Stewart replaced those guidelines with new interim processes that rely on the Director to issue decisions on patent owners’ requests for discretionary denials.