By James Kachmar

Last summer, I wrote about the appellate court’s decision in VL Systems, Inc. v. Unison, Inc. in which the Court struck down a “no hire” provision contained in a consulting agreement as violating section 16600 of California’s Business and Professions Code. Section 16600 provides “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent void.” This summer, the California Supreme Court in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen used the same reasoning to strike down a “non-competition” provision in an employment agreement.

Continue Reading Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP The Death of Non-Competition Agreements?

By Jeffrey Pietsch

eBay let out a sigh of relief last month when a New York Federal Court ruled that eBay’s efforts to remove sellers of counterfeit goods was sufficient to combat the sale of fake Tiffany & Co. products. In fact, the court held that trademark holders, such as Tiffany & Co., are the ones responsible for policing the online market place for counterfeit products, not online “swap meets” such as eBay.

Continue Reading Tiffany v. eBay: eBay Not Responsible for Counterfeit Goods

By Scott Cameron

The United States Government, which created the courts and a legal system to provide an avenue to seek redress for injury, is immune from suit in that system unless the Government agrees to be sued by waiving its immunity. This is commonly known as “sovereign immunity,” and allows many lawsuits to be dismissed at the pleading stage. On July 25, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion regarding the scope of sovereign immunity as applied in a copyright infringement case. 

The Federal Government has waived its immunity for suits based on its infringing the rights of copyright owners. It is a rather limited waiver, however, and allows the Government to infringe much more freely than a private party. Last week’s Federal Circuit decision, Blueport Co., LLC v. United States, shows how easy it can be for a government employee to lose his rights to work he has created.

Continue Reading We’re the Government, and We’re Here to Copy – Blueport Co. v. United States

By James Kachmar

A California appellate court was recently faced with the issue of when the statute of limitations runs on a claim for trade secret misappropriation against a third party when the plaintiff’s trade secrets are stolen and sold to that third party. On May 30, 2008, the appellate court issued its opinion in Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Superior Court (Silvaco Data Systems) and held that the statute of limitations on a cause of action for trade secret misappropriation begins to run when the plaintiff has reason to suspect that the third party knows or reasonably should know that the information in its possession is a trade secret. The appellate court held that the third party’s actual state of mind did not matter for purposes of the running of the statute of limitations.

Continue Reading Third Party Trade Secret Misappropriation and the Statute of Limitations

By Audrey A. Millemann

On May 8, 2008, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in a case that may significantly change the patent landscape. The court is expected to clarify, and perhaps narrow, the test for business method patents.

The case is In re Bilski, case no. 2007-1130. The patent claims are directed to a method of hedging the costs of a commodity, specifically, a method of managing risks for consumers of commodities, such as energy, and for commodity providers. The patent application was filed in 1997 and rejected by the PTO under 35 U.S.C. §101 as nonstatutory subject matter. The applicant appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, who affirmed the PTO’s decision in March 2006. The Board held that the applicant’s process was an abstract idea and therefore unpatentable. 

Continue Reading What is a Patentable Business Method? Federal Circuit to Decide