X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

They may be out there–third-party patents you know nothing about when you are entering into agreements to protect against the disclosure or other unauthorized use of confidential information. Typically, attorneys rely on standard one- or two-page non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). But standard NDAs may be vulnerable to attack on the basis of these third-party patents.

The structure of the typical NDA consists of:

(1) a definition of “confidential information” that establishes the scope of protection for disclosure; (2) exclusions from the definition, such as information (a) rightfully in the possession of recipient prior to the disclosure, (b) legally obtained from third parties, so long as such information is not obtained, developed, or disclosed in violation of discloser’s rights; and (c) information in the public domain; (3) limitations and restrictions regarding the use of the confidential information; (4) an agreement that the recipient of the confidential information enter into an agreement with its employees and consultants to protect and secure the confidential information; (5) a statement of ownership [FOOTNOTE 1] of the confidential information; (6) remedies for a breach of the agreement; and (7) general provisions, such as integration, waiver, jurisdiction, and governing law.

Most NDAs contain these provisions and do not vary a great deal in structure or content. The typical NDA can be vitiated with evidence that the confidential information it addresses was in the public domain at the time of disclosure due to claims contained in a patent at the time the disclosure occurred. For example, in Kublan v. Hasbro Toy Division,[FOOTNOTE 2] a toy designer sued Hasbro for manufacturing a dinosaur puppet after the idea for the toy had been submitted to Hasbro under an NDA agreement. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the inventor’s claim, on Hasbro’s motion for summary judgment, because “plaintiff’s dinosaur puppet idea was in the public domain [in the form of three patents], which the confidentiality agreement . . . specifically excludes from coverage.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.