Jim fink insurance3/30/2023 ![]() 16, 2023), the vendor GateGuard alleged that Amazon was misappropriating GateGuard’s “proprietary security technology that acts as an ‘AI Doorman’ for multifamily residential properties, allowing authorized users to unlock entrances remotely and to monitor activity.” Judge John Koeltl’s sixty-three page opinion focused on, among other things, Gateguard’s terms of service agreement which specifically forbid reverse engineering. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently rejected a motion by Amazon to dismiss a complaint accusing Amazon of improperly reverse engineering the artificial intelligence (AI) trade secrets of a vendor. For more on the decision, check out Scott Lauck’s post on the case for Missouri Lawyers Media. , Inc., the Eighth Circuit joined six other federal circuits that found this form of pleading to be sufficient. Can a pleading citing “information and belief” for its allegations of misappropriation survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)? If the information is solely within the possession of the defendant and the inference is otherwise plausible, the answer is “yes,” according to the U.S. ![]() § 256 was premature because no patents had yet issued. In particular, Judge Black found that declaratory relief for a correction of ownership under 35 U.S.C. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Judge Timothy Black rejected arguments that a state court declaratory relief action over the ownership of several disputed patent applications involved federal patent or trade secret claims and ruled that it belonged in state court. However, that question does not guarantee federal subject matter jurisdiction, as the defendants learned in a decision remanding an ownership dispute removed to federal court back to state court. Disputes over inventorship are not confined to patent cases and often arise in trade secrets cases too.A number of trade secret luminaries (Vicki Cundiff, Jim Pooley, Peter Toren, Elizabeth Rowe, Rebecca Wexler and Professor Menell) have already contributed to its drafting, and for those interested in providing comments, please reach out to Peter at (please note he is working on a tight timeline). He also discusses the unique qualities of trade secret cases that prompted the TSCMJG, including (1) the challenges of trade secret identification (2) the highly emotional nature of trade secret cases, and (3) the interplay between criminal and civil proceedings in these cases. In a post for Patently-O, Peter describes how the TSCMJG came into existence. For those interested in shaping an important trade secrets resource for the federal bench, Berkeley Professor Peter Menell is looking for comments to the Trade Secret Case Management Judicial Guide (TSJCMG), which is intended as a “go-to” resource for judges in these cases.Notable Defend Trade Secrets Act and Federal Trade Secret Developments, Opinions and Posts: Here are the noteworthy cases, articles and posts from last month, along with several DTSA cases from January that didn’t make it into last month’s update:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |