SpicyIP

DECEMBER 20, 2023

So, before 2023 turns into yesteryear, let’s see what the past Novembers on SpicyIP (2005 to present) have offered. The issue has often arisen in the context of protecting confidential information through copyright law. Image from here November has passed. E.g., see Prateek Surisetti’s post here and Niyati Prabhu’s post here.

Personality Rights 59

Personality Rights IP Licensing Copyright 59

The IPKat

AUGUST 2, 2023

Those who needed to know then had to sign a separate confidentiality agreement. There is a 5-year statute of limitations under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act and had Alcoa been concerned about UAC they should have brought their claims in 2005.

Confidentiality 52

Confidentiality Litigation Privacy Technology 52

SpicyIP

JULY 5, 2021

In Rajeev Kumar vs Jamia Millia Islamia (12th April 2021), an extremely interesting tussle was seen with the copyright over a thesis being pitted against a person’s right to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Background. Assessment. suo moto mandatory disclosures. suo moto mandatory disclosures.

Patent Application 131

Patent Application Invention Confidentiality Copyright Law 131

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

JUNE 29, 2022

1-800 Contacts first appeared on this blog on February 9, 2005, my second day of blogging. OxBlue. * Want To Know Amazon’s Confidential Settlement Terms For A Keyword Advertising Lawsuit? 17 years later, I’m still blogging their ignoble trademark lawsuits. WhenU (2d Cir.

Trademark 111

Trademark Advertising Advertising Blogging 111

SpicyIP

MARCH 21, 2024

Between 1911 and 2005, Indian patent law allowed any person to “oppose” a patent application within a three-months window, after the patent application had been examined and found fit to be granted but before the patent was “sealed.” That the requirement to disclose this information annually is burdensome is quite simply not true.

Patent 52

Patent Patent Application Government Reporting 52

LexBlog IP

SEPTEMBER 17, 2021

As explained below, this case is the latest in a line of decisions declining to find that evidence of improperly downloaded information may not be sufficiently compelling circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. ( A copy of the opinion can be found here ). What happened? As the U.S. Cordis Corp., 3d 592, 600-601 (6th Cir.

Confidentiality 52

Confidentiality Invention Technology Patent Application 52

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 18, 2022

A: contracts were confidential but may be able to talk about standard terms. Thus, intermediate copying for reverse engineering of software is now a rule. There weren’t followup cases from 2005-2017; only six cases cited those two cases and two of those were Oracle v. Sample contracts would also be great. Accolade, Sony v.

Fair Use 59

Fair Use Contracts Litigation Copying 59