Trade secrets are considered as one of the most valuable assets in any company and the need to effectively manage and protect these must be prioritized at all times. However, as companies continue to grapple with remote work arrangements, taking reasonable management and precautions for trade secrets has become more complex and challenging.
Policy changes continue to reshape trial practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Some of the recent developments include expansion of the PTAB’s discretionary denial power, potential investigation of PTAB denials by the Congress, and judicial review of PTAB decisions following Thryv v. Click-to-Call.
The year 2020 has seen an upsurge in the number of disputes and investigations concerning trade secret misappropriation, and this is expected to continue in 2021. Currently, a significant number of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigations revolve around "Chinese technology theft," which are done either by using insiders or any cyber means. Further complicating the trade secret protection landscape is the new risks posed by the recent shift of companies to remote work.
As intellectual property (IP) becomes more vital to many organizations, it is also becoming an attractive target for theft and infringement. Recent statistics have shown that IP theft in the U.S. jeopardizes millions of jobs and billions of dollars annually.
The protection of trade secrets and other confidential information is paramount to employers. However, with the increasing number of trade secret-related claims in employment litigation, companies are not only posed with threats of internal theft, but are also confronted with the challenge of safeguarding their assets.
The patent law landscape evolves at an accelerating pace, making it a challenge for patent law experts to navigate the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) minefield every year.
Several common measurements and general methodologies are currently being used to calculate infringement damages in intellectual property (IP) lawsuits. To determine the most applicable ones, practitioners need to consider key facts and circumstances of a particular dispute.
The Standard Essential Patent (SEP) litigation landscape continues to evolve as years pass. Interestingly, its interplay with other legal areas presents unique challenges for businesses and patent owners.
The swift and unregulated development of artificial intelligence (AI) is significantly affecting innovation and the intellectual property (IP) landscape. As AI-based products, applications, and techniques continue to emerge in high volume, IP protection and enforcement issues are expected to increase.
Yearly regulatory updates from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) constantly shape the post-grant patent trials landscape. This year’s proposed guidelines entail amendments on the rules surrounding standard practices in post-grant review (PGR), inter partes review (IPR), and covered business method (CBM).
As the biosimilar industry continues to grow, significant legal developments and trends also continue to emerge and pose challenges to market participants. Questions currently hounding the future of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigation and regulatory pathway include the newly introduced Biologic Patent Transparency Act, the ongoing debates on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the potential unavailability of inter partes and post-grant review proceedings for biosimilar manufacturers.
The rise of e-commerce in recent years had significantly helped businesses to gain better customer engagement and, thus, improve bottom lines. However, along with the surge of business opportunities on the internet, is the influx of criminals selling fake products and standing up brand infringing sites used for stealing credentials and propagating scams.
Issues on Section 101 patent eligibility have been significantly important, both for patent owners and defendants in patent litigations. With notable court decisions, such as American Axle, continuously raising the bar in this area of law, it is expected that developments under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will likely continue to bring complexity and challenges to inventors, owners, litigating parties, and applicants alike.
The Standard Essential Patent (SEP) litigation landscape continues to evolve as years pass. Interestingly, its interplay with other legal areas presents unique challenges for businesses and patent owners. Thus, practitioners are faced with significant hurdles in seeking claims based on FRAND and SEP infringements.
The International Trade Commission (ITC) is continuing its efforts to develop effective alternative procedures to continuously conduct Section 337 investigations even amidst the growing impact of the pandemic.
