Adsense HTML

Showing posts with label trade secret. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade secret. Show all posts

Jurisdiction over Google

In Canada, on June 13, 2014, a Canadian court issued an injunction requiring Google to remove certain websites from its internet search results worldwide. Those websites were operating in violation of previous court orders and were being used to market a product that the plaintiffs say was developed through theft of their trade secrets.  The injunction granted was on a worldwide basis.

The injunction was upheld by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, but Google then obtained an order from a California court making it unenforceable in the United States. Google now applies to set aside or vary the injunction.  Google was unsuccessful.

See Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, 2018 BCSC 610 https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/06/2018BCSC0610.htm

Comments in this Canadian Blog

X v. Twitter


A case in NSW requiring Twitter to remove posts on a worldwide basis that contained confidential information.


Comment in this blog post.

IP Theft

"Our message is quite clear: the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets is critical to all intellectual property rights holders, whether they be from the United States or whether they be from Chinese companies or other companies around the world,'' Robert Hormats, the under secretary of state for economic growth, energy and the environment, said.

Though China is regarded as the most aggressive actor, Mr Hormats said other countries are guilty as well. He cited Russia and India as two countries active in the theft of intellectual property.

See SMH

Employees Violating Computer Misuse Policy

In July, the Fourth Circuit weighed in on the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) in WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC v. Miller and found that the CFAA is not broad enough to impose liability on an employee who has lawful access to his employer's electronic information but later misuses that information - such as by stealing the employer's electronic trade secrets. In taking this narrow approach to the CFAA and siding with the Second and Ninth Circuits, the Fourth Circuit has widened the circuit split over whether the CFAA applies to disloyal employees who violate the computer use policies of their employer. In this Legal Alert, Audra Dial and John Moye discuss the Fourth Circuit's recent ruling and its impact for employers drafting computer use policies as well as companies pursuing trade secret claims through the CFAA.

See kilpatrickstockton.com

A warning from California

"The FLIR decision is a reminder to employers to be cautious when determining to bring a lawsuit against former employees for trade secret misappropriation. California courts may not tolerate the filing of misappropriation claims where it appears the employer is merely fearful or suspicious of wrongdoing. In such cases, the employer plaintiff risks not only a dismissal of its claims but the possibility of being sanctioned for bringing the action. "

FLIR Systems v. Parrish

Non Specialist Lawyers Doing Domain Name Disputes - A big risk!

In my opinion, there is a big risk using a non-specialist lawyer to run a domain name dispute under the UDRP or auDRP.  A recent example is ...