Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 MARCH 2022

Webinar Recap! Protecting Trade Secrets And Enforcing Restrictive Covenants Internationally

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Explore more from Seyfarth Shaw LLP

In the second program in the 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth partners Jesse Coleman, Dan Hart, and Caitlin Lane discussed how to identify the greatest threats to...

United StatesIntellectual Property
Jesse Coleman
Jesse Coleman
Daniel Hart
Daniel Hart
Caitlin E. Lane
Caitlin E. Lane
Author LinkedIn connections

In the second program in the 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth partners Jesse Coleman, Dan Hart, and Caitlin Lane discussed how to identify the greatest threats to trade secrets, provided tips and best practices for protecting trade secrets abroad, and covered enforcement mechanisms and remedies internationally and in the US.

As a follow up to this webinar, our team wanted to highlight:

  • US Law provides two key statutes with civil remedies for protecting trade secrets where the misappropriation occurs extraterritorially – ITC Section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337) and the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1837-each with different remedies, requirements of applicability, and pros/cons.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Sheppard
Sheppard
Article

AI Learning Or AI Copying? Ninth Circuit Weighs In

The Ninth Circuit held that GitHub Copilot's AI-generated code did not violate DMCA's copyright management information (CMI) removal provisions, even when output resembled source code, because the system generated new works through probabilistic patterns rather than retrieving and stripping information from existing copies. This decision establishes a critical distinction between AI systems that learn and generate versus those that retrieve and reproduce, with significant implications for how courts evaluat
United StatesIntellectual Property
Ballard Spahr LLP
Ballard Spahr LLP
Article

A New Price Tag On OPT? DHS Proposes Unprecedented Fees For F-1 Practical Training

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed imposing fees of $70,000 for initial OPT recommendations and $30,000 for second-year extensions on educational institutions, potentially reshaping how international students, universities, and employers participate in the Optional Practical Training program. While framed as a fraud prevention measure, the proposal raises critical questions about workforce access, cost allocation...
United StatesImmigration
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Article

More Than A Download: Using USCIS’s E-Verify Records Disposal Deadline As A Compliance Checkup

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is permanently disposing of E-Verify records last updated before December 31, 2016, giving employers until January 8, 2027, to download critical compliance documentation. Companies must act now to preserve historical case data needed for audits, government investigations, and Form I-9 system transitions while ensuring their E-Verify account information remains current and accurate.
United StatesImmigration
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Video

Consumer Counterpoint Quick Take: TCPA Default Judgment Denied As Court Rejects Cellphone And Text Claims (Video)

A Southern District of Florida judge recently declined to enter a default judgment against a defendant in a TCPA case, determining that the term 'residential telephone subscriber' under 227(c)(1) does not extend to cell phones. This decision has significant implications for how telecommunications consumer protection laws apply to mobile devices versus traditional landlines.
United StatesConsumer Protection
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Article

Forms, Fines, And Functionality: What ICE’s Latest I-9 Inspection Update Means For Employers

ICE has updated its Form I-9 inspection guidance for the second time in 2026, introducing a new notice for expired work authorization and clarifying penalty calculations. The update provides critical insight into audit procedures, electronic system requirements, and the stricter enforcement framework that reclassified common Form I-9 errors from technical to substantive violations.
United StatesImmigration
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP