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 While the opinion is designated as unpublished — and therefore not precedential — the panel's reasoning sheds light on an important issue in trade secrets remedies.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 The exception was an unpublished decision issued shortly after eBay, upholding a denial of preliminary injunction in a trade secret case where the lower court did not apply a presumption of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
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
Most of the federal circuit courts that have addressed what qualifies either as a "compilation" or as a single creative work apply an "independent economic value" analysis that looks at the market worth of the single creation as of the time when an infringement occurs. But in a recent ruling of first impression, the Fifth Circuit rejected the "independent economic value" test in determining which individual sound recordings are eligible for their own statutory awards and which are part of compilation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
Regardless of how a company proceeds with identifying AI governance challenges, and folds appropriate mitigation solution into a risk management framework, it is critical to begin with an AI governance program.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.