Breaking Down Bad Faith: Insurers’ Good Faith Duties and Defending Bad Faith Claims
An Uncompromising Insurer: What is a Policyholder to Do?
Hinshaw Insurance Law TV: Recent Changes in Florida Property Insurance Law and How They Will Affect First Party Insurance
Podcast - The Briefing from the IP Law Blog: Lord of The Rings Author’s Estate Clings to its Precious Trademark, Blocking JRR Token
The Briefing from the IP Law Blog: Lord of The Rings Author’s Estate Clings to its Precious Trademark, Blocking JRR Token
Butler's Thursday Tips #7 | Civil Remedy Notices
Subro Sense Podcast - Considerations In Fixed Funds/Limited Pool Scenarios
Protecting Your Brand in China
Both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) and Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“PUTSA”) provide that a defendant may recover its attorneys’ fees if it demonstrates that a claim for misappropriation of...more
In a late-March 2023 decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, a court denied a plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees against a defendant who filed "objectively specious" counterclaims...more
Litigators know it is generally not easy to recover attorneys’ fees in defense of a trade secret misappropriation action. The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) permits a court to “award reasonable attorneys’ fees” to...more
The recent case of Multimedia Sales & Marketing, Inc. v. Marzullo, et al., — N.E.3d —-, 2020 IL App (1st) 191790 (1st Dist. Dec. 21, 2020), demonstrates the peril that attorney fees sanctions present for litigants who bring...more
Magistrate Judge James L. Cott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently recommended denial of a motion for attorneys' fees to a prevailing party under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). The...more
Absent an agreement to the contrary, the dismissal of a statutory cause of action providing for attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party would seem to entitle a defendant to its reasonable fees and costs. In a matter of first...more
Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit ruled that under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.) (“DTSA”), a defendant is not the “prevailing party” by virtue of a plaintiff voluntarily dismissing a DTSA claim,...more
In a question of first impression, the Illinois Appellate Court recently addressed what constitutes “bad faith” for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party under §5 of the Illinois Trade Secret Act...more
In this unusual case, the Court of Chancery has reinstated a director who was tricked into resigning. The opinion has a good discussion of how directors may resign and when their resignation is not effective....more
California’s Eraser Law: What IP Attorneys and Owners Need to Know - Hector recently graduated from UC Berkeley and is anxious about his upcoming job interview. He is about to enter the adult world. But he has also got...more
In Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s award of $180,817.50 in attorneys’ fees plus costs to Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. as the...more
A California appellate court recently affirmed the trial court’s ruling in Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. that the defendant (“Maxim”) was entitled to attorney’s fees under California...more
Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California awarded more than $11 million in attorneys' fees and costs to three trade secret defendants, finding that plaintiffs who had raised a claim...more