This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
A quick glance at last week – Madras HC accepts a US District Court’s Letter Rogatory to furnish confidential information, a look at Functional Fallacies in Thomson Reuters vs Ross Intelligence and many more. We also have the initiation of our attempt to bring IP conversations to wider audiences through multilingual writing!
Highlights of the Week Cheroots to Cheers or Bringing IP Conversations to Wider Audiences: A SpicyIP Initiative for Vernacular Dissemination ‘De-code Indian IntellectualPropertyLaw’ – For who? However, the Court seemingly overlooked the nature and specifics of the information sought.
In Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84 , the Church of Scientology sued a former member for publishing a book criticizing Scientology that contained material copied from Scientology books and documents, as well as confidential information pertaining to Scientology courses. And, while one is at it, why not for all intellectualpropertylaws?”. [1]
Any Confidential information of any startup that gives a competitive advantage to any business over other businesses to safeguard the trade-secrets. Licensing of IntellectualProperty Rights for Startups, Gerald B Halt, IntellectualProperty and Financing Strategies for the Technology Startups. Trade Secrets.
INTRODUCTION Privileged communication refers to the confidential exchange of words between clients and their attorneys. 1] The Indian Law recognises this attorney-client privilege from Sections 132 to 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.[2] Originally, this protection was confined only to domestic agents. 17] David E.
The Confidential information, which may be sold or licensed, is a Trade Secret and forms a part of IntellectualProperty Rights. This is generally ensured by signing confidentiality agreements such as (NDAs) by employees and partners. Teams can create stricter penalization for violation of confidentiality agreements.
This decision indicates that an SEP owner sometimes might need to provide information to a prospective licensee (under a confidentiality agreement), although that may not be necessary for an experienced licensee who can consult existing patent licenses they have entered with others. non-discriminatory] part of FRAND).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content