Click to Download this Supplement in PDF format. (2.9 MB)

Did the Muffin Man Kill PA’s Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine?
The Legal Intelligencer
November 2, 2010

The “inevitable disclosure doctrine” allows a court to bar an ex-employee from working for a new employer even without a non-competition agreement. This injunction can issue even if the employee has expressly rejected any intention to use his prior employer’s trade secrets in the new job. Such good faith is deemed irrelevant if the employee cannot perform the new job without using his prior employer’s trade secrets. Full Text


False Patent Marking After Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers
The Legal Intelligencer
November 2, 2010

False marking claims are driving the growth of intellectual property litigation in the United States. There were about 175 new false marking cases filed in the third quarter of 2010, compared to no such cases having been filed in the third quarter of last year. The vast majority of those cases involve products being sold that bear an expired patent number. Full Text


Patent Pools, Patent Misuse and Antitrust Rule of Reason Analysis
The Legal Intelligencer
November 2, 2010

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently decided a very important case at the intersection of patent and antitrust laws. It presented the question of whether it was “patent misuse” to tie together, for purposes of licensing, a group of the patents owned by different companies who were competitors. Full Text


Current Issues and Developments in Patent Damages Laws
The Legal Intelligencer
November 2, 2010

In recent years, large damages verdicts in patent cases have caused concern among business people and commentators. This has been one of the driving factors behind patent reform, which is still in the works. Full Text


Warning to Corporate Officers:
You Can Be Held Personally Liable for Patent Infringement!
The Legal Intelligencer
November 2, 2010

In the usual patent infringement case, a patent owner sues a company for patent infringement. Sometimes individuals, particularly corporate officers, are named as co-defendants with their company. Generally, the “corporate veil” shields corporate officers from liability for tortious conduct, such as patent infringement, occurring in the regular course of their employment. Full Text