Editing Intellectual Property Nard/Outline
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
## Obviousness (section 103) | ## Obviousness (section 103) | ||
=TRADE SECRET LAWS | =TRADE SECRET LAWS Intro= | ||
Protects certain secret business information against unauthorized acquisition or disclosure by a person who obtained it through improper means or in breach of a confidentiality agreement.Trade Secrets v. Patents: | Protects certain secret business information against unauthorized acquisition or disclosure by a person who obtained it through improper means or in breach of a confidentiality agreement.Trade Secrets v. Patents: | ||
* - Trade secrets must be the subject of reasonable efforts to be kept secret | * - Trade secrets must be the subject of reasonable efforts to be kept secret | ||
Line 140: | Line 139: | ||
==Employer-Employee Relationship== | ==Employer-Employee Relationship== | ||
Courts consider economic impact on the prior company and the employees ability to work, as well as contracts and provisions restricting use of trade secrets.Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham p. 1466 - There was a reasonable non-compete clause and thus it was enforceable. Defendant’s work required confidential information and trade secrets after considering employee’s level of employment, process, access to data.RLM Communications, Inc. v. Tuschen p. 1471 - Employee left company but took files copied onto a CD, giving it to a successor. The clause in the contract were overly broad and thus not enforceable. Also, the employer must have raised an inference of actual acquisition or use of trade secrets to determine misappropriation. Although she took the CD, there was no evidence to raise the inference because there was no evidence she retained any information on the CD.PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond p. 1478 - Confidentiality agreement between a high level employee at PepsiCo. Here, he would have to make decisions at his new job based on the knowledge he acquired as an employee. Inevitable disclosure even if he hasn’t disclosed anything yet. There are trade secrets at stake here, and the plaintiff proved that there was an inevitable reliance on the trade secrets.'''''' | Courts consider economic impact on the prior company and the employees ability to work, as well as contracts and provisions restricting use of trade secrets.Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham p. 1466 - There was a reasonable non-compete clause and thus it was enforceable. Defendant’s work required confidential information and trade secrets after considering employee’s level of employment, process, access to data.RLM Communications, Inc. v. Tuschen p. 1471 - Employee left company but took files copied onto a CD, giving it to a successor. The clause in the contract were overly broad and thus not enforceable. Also, the employer must have raised an inference of actual acquisition or use of trade secrets to determine misappropriation. Although she took the CD, there was no evidence to raise the inference because there was no evidence she retained any information on the CD.PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond p. 1478 - Confidentiality agreement between a high level employee at PepsiCo. Here, he would have to make decisions at his new job based on the knowledge he acquired as an employee. Inevitable disclosure even if he hasn’t disclosed anything yet. There are trade secrets at stake here, and the plaintiff proved that there was an inevitable reliance on the trade secrets.'''''' | ||
=COPYRIGHT LAW= | =COPYRIGHT LAW= | ||
17 USC §102: Copyright protection subsists…in '''ORIGINAL works of authorship, FIXED in''' ''' any tangible medium of EXPRESSION''', now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device'''Requirements for Copyright Protection: ''' | 17 USC §102: Copyright protection subsists…in '''ORIGINAL works of authorship, FIXED in''' ''' any tangible medium of EXPRESSION''', now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device'''Requirements for Copyright Protection: ''' |