Jeffrey Schulman of Liner writes: The scope of coverage provided by IP policies can vary and the interpretation of those policies vary by jurisdiction, so insureds should carefully review their policies prior to making a claim to ensure that they frame their claim in a way that maximizes recovery and takes full advantage of the coverage provided.
Robert S. Friedman and James Salem of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton write: Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the basic elements of a typical trade secret litigation are not much altered, especially in states in which the Uniform Trade Secrets Act has been in place for years. However, as more cases are filed under the DTSA, some of the new tools and strategies that the DTSA now makes available to New York-based business litigators are becoming more apparent.
Jocelyn E. Strauber, David Meister and Eli Rubin of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom write: To ensure that prosecutors can protect their investigations but do not exceed their limited ability to request (but not demand) non-disclosure, and to adequately address the real risk that recipients of subpoenas will treat requests from prosecutors as demands, non-disclosure requests should include language that makes clear both the limits of the government’s authority and the rights of the subpoena recipients.
Boris Segalis, Mia Havel and Sonia Lee of Norton Rose Fulbright write: Many point to the Trump administration’s focus on trade deals (and threats to renegotiate or withdraw from them) as the potential battleground for a data transfer skirmish, but the new administration has another weapon its arsenal—seeking a WTO sanction against the EU for discriminatory trade practices.
David Lender, Eric Hochstadt and Luna Barrington of Weil, Gotshal & Manges write: Two recent decisions by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits provide further clarity as to the type of alleged injury that is—and is not—”concrete” enough to satisfy Article III standing.