Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
[Editor's Note: June's issue of The IP Strategist included an article on the need for a trade secret protection plan now that noncompete clauses have been made unenforceable. This article looks at one part of such a plan — patents.]
On May 7, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a final rule banning the enforcement of nearly all noncompete clauses in employment agreements nationwide (89 FR 38342). This new rule will have sweeping effects across all sectors of the economy, if it survives court challenges that have already been filed (see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. FTC, 6:24-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex., April 24, 2024).
|The FTC's new rule makes it an unfair method of competition to enter into new noncompete clauses or enforce existing noncompete clauses after Sept. 4, 2024 (120 days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register), with very limited exceptions: existing noncompete clauses with senior executives can remain in force, though new ones are not allowed, allowing for a sunset period; and noncompete agreements tied to the sale of a business entity can remain valid. Causes of action for breach of a noncompete agreement accruing prior to the Sept. 4 deadline can still be enforced, and the FTC does not consider it an unfair method of competition to attempt to enforce a noncompete where there's a good-faith, though erroneous, basis to believe the rule is inapplicable (such as disagreements over whether an employee qualifies as a "senior executive," which is defined in the rule as a worker earning a salary of at least $151,164, placing them in the top 15th percentile nationally; and who is in a "policy-making position," typically an officer of a corporation or with similar authority).
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
A novel legal self-help technique to secure artificial intelligence data and programs is known as Poisoning AI. This technique involves modifying the AI algorithm to intentionally produce specific erroneous results.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether purchasing market competitors’ search engine keyword terms, known as “conquesting,” constitutes trademark infringement.
The DOJ has proposed a rule that would regulate certain transactions involving bulk sensitive personal data. The rule would implement a complex regulatory framework, with civil and criminal enforcement, that is similar to sanctions and export licensing regimes. It also implicates federal cybersecurity requirements, government contracting and CFIUS actions.
The legal industry is at an inflection point, grappling with challenges that range from rising client demands to technological disruption. There are five critical areas where firms can take a proactive, strategic approach, including actionable insights and recommendations for navigating 2025 and beyond.
The Second Circuit’s decision is notable in that it signals a reversal of the recent trend of dismissals of VPPA claims in courts across the country and could trigger a significant increase in VPPA lawsuits. Although organizations have grappled with VPPA claims for several years, this decision is another red flag to organizations to take immediate steps and ensure compliance with privacy laws to mitigate the risks of VPPA claims.