Blogs

Posts Categorized: Intellectual Property

Posted: February 11, 2019

“Offer for Sale” Can Constitute Advertising Injury Under CGL Policy

On December 19, 2018, the Second Circuit issued a decision in High Point Design, LLC v. LM Ins. Corp., Docket No. 16-1446-cv, holding that a counterclaim alleging patent and trade dress infringement in an “offer[] for sale” triggered an insurer’s duty to defend under the “advertising injury” provision of a CGL Policy. This coverage action... Read more »

Posted: January 1, 2019

Theft of Trade Secret Claims Dismissed Because Information Was Disclosed to the Public

On December 11, 2018, Justice Ash of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Corporate Transp. Group, Ltd. v. Limosys, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op. 33282(U), dismissing a theft of trade secrets claim because the alleged trade secret had been disclosed to the public, explaining: To prevail on a claim for misappropriation of trade... Read more »

Posted: December 26, 2018

Idea Misappropriation Claims Dismissed on Summary Judgment for Lack of Novelty

On December 5, 2018, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Hyperlync Tech., Inc. v. Verizon Sourcing LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op. 33123(U), dismissing a claim for idea misappropriation on summary judgment for lack of novelty, explaining: To prove a claim for misappropriation of ideas, a plaintiff must establish: (1)... Read more »

Posted: May 21, 2018

Court Of Appeals Rejects “Avoided Costs” As Proper Measure Of Damages For Misappropriation Of Trade Secrets

On May 3, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion, E.J. Brooks Co. v Cambridge Sec. Seals, 2018 NY Slip Op 03171, answering a question certified by the Second Circuit, namely whether a plaintiff can recover its competitor’s avoided costs as damages in a trade secrets action, whether as misappropriation, unfair competition, or unjust... Read more »

Posted: December 10, 2017

Claim for Misappropriation of Ideas Dismissed on Summary Judgment

On November 14, 2017 Justice Sherwood of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Schroeder v. Cohen, 2017 NY Slip Op. 32463(U), dismissing a claim for misappropriation of ideas, explaining: This cause of action for misappropriation of ideas requires proof of two elements: (1) a legal relationship between the parties in the... Read more »

Posted: July 6, 2017

Theft of Trade Secrets Claim Fails; Customer Lists Were Not Shown to be Secret

On June 28, 2017, the Second Department issued a decision in Tri-Star Lighting Corp. v. Goldstein, 2017 NY Slip Op. 05261, affirming the dismissal of a theft of trade secrets claim because the alleged trade secrets (customer lists) were not adequately alleged to have been secrets, explaining: The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of... Read more »

Posted: June 30, 2017

Court of Appeals Accepts Certified Questions Regarding Calculation of Damages and Prejudgment Interest in Trade Secret Cases

On June 27, 2017, the Court of Appeals accepted two certified questions from the Second Circuit in E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Sec. Seals, 2017 NY Slip Op 78277: 1. “[W]hether, under New York law, a plaintiff asserting claims of misappropriation of a trade secret, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment can recover damages that are... Read more »

Posted: June 22, 2017

Court Refuses to Enforce No-Challenge Clause in Patent License

On June 14, 2017, Justice Kornreich of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Island Intellectual Property LLC v. Reich & Tang Deposit Solutions, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op. 27199, holding that the provision of a patent license prohibiting the licensee from challenging the validity of the licensed patents was unenforceable, explaining:... Read more »

Posted: November 17, 2016

Clothing Designs Other Than Trademarked Logos are Not Protected Intellectual Property

On November 1, 2016, Justice Sherwood of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in S.A.S.C.O. Trading, Inc. v. Pamnani, 2016 NY Slip Op. 32243(U), holding that clothing designs were not protected intellectual property, explaining: Assuming that defendants copied designs created by plaintiffs, such designs appear not to be protected unless the copying... Read more »