In several recent decisions, district courts have held that liability under the Defend Trade Secrets Act can extend to extraterritorial defendants. As set forth by Sheppard Mullin’s Tyler Baker in a prior blog post, the extraterritorial reach of the DTSA is rapidly expanding. Non-U.S. Companies and the DTSA: Parameters of a Developing Reality | Trade Secrets Law Blog (citing vPersonalize Inc. v. Magnetize Consultants Ltd., 437 F. Supp. 3d 860, 878 (W.D. Wash. 2020); Micron Tech. Inc. v. United Microelectronics Corp., No. 17-cv-06932-MMC, 2019 WL 1959487 (N.D. Ca. May 2, 2019); Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Commc’ns Corp., 436 F.Supp.3d 1150, 1165 (N.D. Ill. 2020); ProV In’tl Inc. v. Lucca, No. 8:19-cv-978-T-23AAS, 2019 WL 5578880 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2019)). As Mr. Baker observed, these rulings create a risk for foreign entities regarding trade secret theft, as federal courts have held that foreign actors may be subject to liability under the DTSA if the act in furtherance of the misappropriation occurred in the United States. Continue Reading
On October 15, 2020, CFIUS will officially tie mandatory filings to U.S. export control regimes, including the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). While that change may draw a clearer line of what constitutes a mandatory filing, it also pulls your CFIUS review into the complex (and somewhat nerdy) world of export regulations. Continue Reading
On June 22, 2020, the White House announced an extension and expansion of Proclamation 10014, which was originally announced on April 22, 2020 and restricted the issuance of and entry on immigrant visas. The new visa ban expands the restrictions to certain non-immigrant categories. Continue Reading
With the growing concern about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19” or “coronavirus”) some foreign nationals who live outside the U.S. have decided to fly to the U.S. and wait out the crisis. This article discusses the related visa and immigration issues, and what U.S. Customs and Border Protection requires to admit someone into the U.S.
With round after round of tariffs on Chinese goods, announcements, removals, exclusions, delays, increases and, of course, tweets regarding all of the above, it can be easy to get lost on where, exactly, things stand with respect to Tariffs implemented under Section 301 of the Trade Act. Below we provide a brief overview and reference chart, complete with links to the relevant notices. We will update the chart as the U.S. government adds, removes, or changes the tariffs.
** This is an update to our August 19, 2019 post. **
Almost two years into the trade war, the United States and China have reached a preliminary agreement. On January 15, 2020, the United States Trade Representative published that agreement. The agreement includes provisions on intellectual property, technology transfer, agriculture, currency, and expanding trade.
Per that agreement, the USTR will reduce duties on List 4A, which is roughly $120 billion worth of Chinese goods, from 15 to 7.5 percent effective on February 14, 2020.
The New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) is proposing a new regulation that would allow banks to share confidential supervisory information with their attorneys or an independent auditor without gaining prior approval from the department.
Banks currently need written approval from DFS each time they want to share confidential supervisory information with their advisors. The proposed new regulation would streamline operations by making it easier for banks to share relevant information with their advisors. Continue Reading
Trade secrets frequently drive the success of a business both in South Korea and the United States.
Overview for Korean Businesses
Trade secret protection is more important than ever given increased workforce mobility and industrial espionage, as well as the advent of technology that makes misappropriation easier than it used to be. The loss of a trade secret can undermine a business’ competitive advantage.
South Korea’s Patent Act and the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (“UCPA”) proscribes trade secret misappropriation. It is comparable to U.S. trade secret law although there are some differences, such as in the U.S. the putative trade secret holder must take reasonable steps to protect the secrecy of the information.
U.S. trade secret legal requirements are relevant to South Korea businesses that do business or may do business in the U.S., especially given the importance of the U.S. market. If South Korean businesses want to protect their trade secrets as trade secrets in the U.S., they need to satisfy U.S. requirements for such protection – include that reasonable steps be taken to protect the trade secret before the information is misappropriated. This blog article underscores the need for a business to take such reasonable steps, what may be rejected as reasonable steps, and the ramifications if reasonable steps are not taken. Continue Reading
Fearing the burdens of U.S. court litigation, many foreign companies doing business with American counter-parties insist on forum selection clauses that call for resolution of disputes outside of U.S. courts, either in foreign courts or international arbitration. High on the list of objectives may be avoiding U.S.-style discovery, which can justifiably strike fear into the hearts of non-U.S. companies. However, before congratulating themselves too heartily, such companies should consider the often overlooked provisions of a U.S. statute that authorizes U.S. courts to order discovery for use in certain foreign legal proceedings. Continue Reading
The United States government has a powerful new tool to gain access to data stored overseas – the CLOUD Act, which was enacted this spring. If you are a company based overseas, particularly if you use a cloud service provider with a significant U.S. presence, it just got a lot easier for the U.S. government to get your data, and the data you hold for your customers.
Background to the CLOUD Act
Since 1986, U.S. law enforcement’s access to electronic data held by private third parties has been regulated by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA,18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq). That law was enacted, in part, to extend government restrictions on wire taps from telephone calls to include transmissions of electronic data by computer and stored electronic communications. These issues are addressed in Title II of ECPA, known as the Stored Communications Act (SCA). While ECPA and the SCA have been amended several times since 1986, their primary provisions have remained the same, meaning that much of American law relating to government access to electronic data held by third parties was in fact drafted several years before email was commonly used and the World Wide Web was even created. Continue Reading
In late June, there were reports that the Trump Administration would use emergency powers to restrict Chinese investment in the United States. On Wednesday, the White House backed away from that position after the House of Representatives passed a bill on Tuesday expanding and increasing the powers of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The bill is called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). Continue Reading