Trade Secrets: Strategies for understanding & litigating a DTSA Cause of Action

Logo
Presented by

R. Mark Halligan, FisherBroyles, Mark L. Krotoski, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Linda K. Stevens, Schiff Hardin, Peter J. Toren,

About this talk

An in-depth discussion and update on the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 that became effective on May 11, 2016 including a review of the key provisions of the DTSA and the nexus to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) and the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA). This webinar will include the following topics: •History of the DTSA •Analysis of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) Interface With the DTSA •Ex Parte Seizure Provisions of the DTSA •Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and RICO Predicate Acts •Litigation Strategies: Plaintiff’s Perspective •Litigation Strategies: Defendants’ Perspective •Immunity and Whistleblower Provisions •Civil Remedies •Interface With Criminal Violations of the EEA Speakers: R. Mark Halligan, FisherBroyles Mark L. Krotoski, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Linda K. Stevens, Schiff Hardin Peter J. Toren, Weisbrod, Matteis & Copley

Related topics:

More from this channel

Upcoming talks (0)
On-demand talks (85)
Subscribers (11198)
‘What keeps in-house counsel awake at night?’ is one way to summarise our editorial focus. We aim to track the strategies of in-house IP counsel within companies, big and small, by speaking directly to them about the day-to-day issues they face. Law firms need practical information that they can apply when advising their clients, and companies find value in benchmarking their strategies with those of their peers. This is why we have adopted this approach in our subscription-based service. Our content is not reactionary or news-focused, but informed and actionable. In this pursuit of in-house intelligence, we also publish several surveys each year that include exclusive data focusing on specific industry issues. These polls allow us to provide an accurate snapshot of how in-house counsel perceive and act on a given issue. Our other core objective is interviewing senior judges, whose insight is valuable for many IP stakeholders. We find that the judiciary are vital for giving counsel, private and in-house, highly useful information for when they are locked in litigation. We continue to speak regularly with IP offices too. Regardless of its specific intent, our coverage is global and encompasses (but is not limited to) the following areas: Copyright; Data; Designs; Patents; Trademarks; and Trade secrets