While California law is clear regarding the elements required to establish a misappropriation of trade secrets claim, the law has remained unsettled on the elements required to maintain an action for threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. However, in the case of Beauty Barrage LLC, et al. v. Dermaceutical Laboratories LLC, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo shed some light on the question.
Continue Reading Addressing Wrinkles in California’s Threatened Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Law
Gathering evidence of trade secret infringement in Belgium: towards discovery-like measures?
Located in the heart of Europe, Belgium is a true hub of logistics and innovation. It is for example home to one of Europe’s largest sea ports (with all the warehousing infrastructure that one would expect). Belgium also hosts several, globally leading biotech and life sciences clusters. It is no coincidence for example that pharma giant Pfizer has one of its largest production and packaging sites in Puurs, a small Belgian town, where it produces its Covid-19 vaccine. A few miles north, Jansen Pharmaceuticals has its HQ.
Such hubs are not just rich in talented human resources, but also in cutting edge and highly valuable know-how. A high concentration of know-how, combined with the increased mobility of employees, means a high(er) risk of misappropriation of this valuable information by unauthorized (third) parties. When a (foreign) company suspects its know-how has been misappropriated in Belgium, it will need evidence to substantiate this allegation in court. If the know-how is (also) covered by an intellectual property (IP) right, the holder of the know-how has access to a very efficient means of collecting evidence: the descriptive counterfeit seizure whereby discovery-like evidentiary measures will be granted ex parte. When the misappropriated know-how is only protected as a trade secret, no similar measures are provided for under EU law. The Belgian judges have therefore in the past not been very eager to grant trade secret holders access to ex parte evidence-gathering. With a recent judgment, however, the Brussels Court of Appeal has left the door behind which discovery-like measures are stored for holders of trade secrets open.
The Emerging Role of Trade Secrets in Life Sciences
Changing Patent Protections
U.S. and foreign patent systems have suffered legislative and judicial reverses as
to subject matter eligibility for patenting, a rising bar of obviousness due to increasing skill of the art, insights aided by artificial intelligence (AI) tools, procedural artifacts for no-risk post grant invalidation by granting agencies, and awakening of once dormant
Former Coca-Cola Employee Convicted of Stealing Trade Secrets for the Chinese Government
First off, don’t worry, Coca-Cola’s super-secret trade secret recipe is still safe. But on April 22, 2021, a jury in the Eastern District of Tennessee convicted a former Coca-Cola employee, Dr. Xiaorong (a/k/a Shannon) You, of stealing trade secrets related to BPA-free coatings for the inside of beverage cans for the Chinese Government. The Indictment alleged that the trade secret information cost almost $120 million to develop. The twelve-day in-person trial focused not just on the former employee’s wrong doing, but also on some the best practices Coca-Cola and Eastman Chemical Company used to protect the trade secrets at issue.
Continue Reading Former Coca-Cola Employee Convicted of Stealing Trade Secrets for the Chinese Government
The Sedona Conference Publishes An Analysis of How to Seek Global Redress of Trade Secret Misappropriation
Since its passage in 2016, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) has become a powerful tool for litigants seeking civil redress for the misappropriation of trade secrets to get into federal court. The DTSA is particularly important because it allows litigants to seek redress for misappropriation that happens outside of the United States – overcoming the general presumption that federal law does not have an extraterritorial reach. We recently discussed the significance of the DTSA’s application across the globe and how to effectively achieve quick recourse.
Continue Reading The Sedona Conference Publishes An Analysis of How to Seek Global Redress of Trade Secret Misappropriation
Enforcement of trade secrets in the EU: compensation and damages for trade secret misappropriation
We have reported on various aspects of the EU Trade Secrets Directive on this blog. The legal requirements for something to qualify as a trade secret, the misappropriation of trade secrets and the remedies that exist to rectify such misappropriation, as well as the protection of trade secrets during court proceedings have all been discussed. However, in order to be properly prepared for trade secrets litigation and enforcement – both in Belgium and across the EU – you also need to know what damages are potentially available for trade secrets misappropriation and more importantly what evidence will have to be shown to the court.
Continue Reading Enforcement of trade secrets in the EU: compensation and damages for trade secret misappropriation
Trade Secret Misappropriation or Breach of Contract? It can be a costly distinction.
The Eleventh Circuit recently struck down an award of $4.5 million in damages after a jury determined that a manufacturer had misappropriated a shared trade secret. AcryliCon USA, LLC (“AcryliCon”) and Silikal GmbH (“Silikal”) had a business relationship in which Silikal manufactured and AcryliCon distributed a proprietary flooring resin of superior compressive strength (1061 SW), and each claimed ownership of the 1061 SW formula trade secret to the exclusion of the other. While ownership of a trade secret is a critical issue in trade secret misappropriation claims, the Court did not address whether AcryliCon owned the trade secret because it determined that Silikal did not misappropriate the formula as a matter of law.
Continue Reading Trade Secret Misappropriation or Breach of Contract? It can be a costly distinction.
ITC Finds Trade Secret Misappropriation and Bars Electric Vehicle Batteries from SK Innovation—With Exceptions
On February 10, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued a final determination finding South Korean lithium-ion electric vehicle battery maker SK Innovation misappropriated the trade secrets of its Korean competitor LG Chem in violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The ITC issued a 10-year exclusion order blocking SK’s imports into the U.S. of lithium-ion batteries and related products, but with substantial exceptions: SK is permitted to continue importing these products specifically for Ford Motor Co.’s EV F-150 program for four years, for Volkswagen of America’s modular electric drive line for two years, and for the repair and replacement of EV batteries for Kia vehicles sold to U.S. customers. President Biden and his U.S. Trade Representative—Katherine Tai has been nominated but not yet confirmed—now have 60 days to review the ITC’s electric vehicle battery exclusion order, an order that could be seen as in tension with the new administration’s promotion of green energy.
Continue Reading ITC Finds Trade Secret Misappropriation and Bars Electric Vehicle Batteries from SK Innovation—With Exceptions
Senate Passed New Legislation to Punish Foreign Individuals and Corporations for IP Theft
On December 20, 2020, the US Senate unanimously passed a new bipartisan bill designed to punish foreign individuals and corporations involved in intellectual property theft.
The Protecting American Intellectual Property Act was co-authored by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. The bill requires a report to Congress every six months identifying:
- any individual or firm that has engaged in, benefitted from, or materially assisted the significant theft of U.S. trade secrets, if that theft constitutes a major threat to the national security, foreign policy, economic health or financial stability of the United States; and,
- the chief executive officers and board members of the reported firms and whether those individuals have benefitted from the significant theft of U.S. trade secrets.
Plaintiff Sanctioned for Violating Protective Order by Sharing Discovery
Last week, a District Court in the Southern District of New York imposed a $40,000 sanction on SIMO Holdings, Inc. (“SIMO”) for violating a pretrial discovery protective order. SIMO disclosed four documents covered under the protective order to persons not permitted to view those documents, and the Court determined that a $10,000 sanction for each document was warranted.
Continue Reading Plaintiff Sanctioned for Violating Protective Order by Sharing Discovery