Entertainment Law Update Episode 160 – August/September 2023
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now - An IP Podcast: NIL – New NCAA Guidelines and State Law Implementation
AGG Talks: Background Screening - What is FCRA Preemption, and Why Should You Care?
Website owners often struggle to design privacy policies that are not only comprehensive, but also comprehensible. The tension between these competing concerns was in sharp focus in a recent Ninth Circuit decision, Calhoun v....more
A Wisconsin pizza maker, Heggie’s Pizza (Heggie’s) argued that its relationship with a purported pizza distributor A & B Distribution (A&B), did not meet the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL) definition of a “dealership.”...more
Intellectual property assets are the lifeblood of many businesses today. No employer wants to see those assets walk out the door when an employee leaves. Employee invention assignment agreements are one crucial tool for...more
Recently the Eleventh Circuit spent a lot of ink discussing how the marketing and sale of sashimi-grade tuna is affected when myoglobin reacts with oxygen to produce oxymyoglobin, and with carbon monoxide to form...more
A growing number of employers monitor and review their employees’ electronic communications, including telephone calls, emails and internet use, while at work or working away from the office. They cite a number of legitimate...more
Deceptive Trade Practices - Meat Exporter Had No Duty Under FCA to Pay for Beef Inspection - In United States ex rel. Barrick v. Parker-Migliorini Int'l, LLC, 878 F. 3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2017), the court affirmed...more
In an opinion issued on December 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) preempts the use of state law to penalize...more
In borrowing a page from the '80s band "Men Without Hats," on June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court brought greater certainty for both biosimilar applicants and originator companies. In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme...more
On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two important questions under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"), which provides an abbreviated pathway for the approval of generic biologics: (i) the...more
On a sweltering hot D.C. morning, those of us anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s opinion in its first case involving biosimilar biological products finally exhaled. The June 12, 2017 opinion followed the parties’ oral...more
In a unanimous decision issued on June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court for the first time interpreted key provisions of the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). See Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., No. 15-1195...more
In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme Court brought greater certainty to two key issues relating to the “patent dance” under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). First, the Court held that where a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court rendered its first interpretations of the biosimilar patent dispute resolution procedures of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), ruling largely in favor of Sandoz on both issues...more
On April 26, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Amgen v. Sandoz, where the parties have asked the Court to interpret two of the biosimilar patent dance provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation...more
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) into law, creating a federal claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. Concerns with the difficulty of protecting trade secrets have grown as...more
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (the DTSA), creating the first Federal civil cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. The DTSA overlaps substantially with,...more
As we covered in a previous post, following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen v. Sandoz, Sandoz filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the...more
A company’s confidential trade secrets are their most coveted assets and give a company a competitive edge over its competitors. Such trade secrets may include product specifications and formulas, recipes, computer...more
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) became law with President Obama’s signature on May 11, 2016. The DTSA is an amendment to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 and, for the first time, affords a federal private right of...more
On May 11, 2016, President Barack Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) into law, creating a federal civil right of action for the theft of trade secrets. Until now, trade secrets had been protected only at...more
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”). The measure had previously been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives 410-2 on April 27, 2016, quickly following the U.S. Senate’s...more
Until now, employers seeking relief for trade secret misappropriation were limited almost exclusively to state law remedies. With the enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) on May 11, 2016, employers now have...more
On May 11, President Barack Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (the "Act") into Law. The Act, which passed overwhelmingly in Congress last week in a 410-2 vote, is an effort to create a private, federal right of action...more
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the long-awaited Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) into law, which was passed by Congress on April 27, 2016. An extension of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, the DTSA provides for a...more
A new weapon in the effort to protect trade secret information came into existence on May 11, 2016 as President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”). DTSA creates a new federal cause of action for trade...more