Trade Secret Litigation

The Federal Circuit in Texas Instruments analyzed congressional legislative history to determine that Congress did not intend a preclusive effect only for patent-based cases. Because the Sany case was not a patent-based case, the district court found that ITC determinations regarding trade secret mi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The IP Litigator : Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement 2018-03, Vol.24 (2), p.22-24
Main Authors: Hogge, Mark, Maheshwari, Shailendra K, Jackson, Nicholas
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
District courts
Employees
Employment
Estoppel
Federal court decisions
Intellectual property
International trade
Litigation
Medical equipment
Res judicata
State court decisions
State laws
Tariffs
Trade secrets
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 24
container_issue 2
container_start_page 22
container_title The IP Litigator : Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement
container_volume 24
creator Hogge, Mark
Maheshwari, Shailendra K
Jackson, Nicholas
description The Federal Circuit in Texas Instruments analyzed congressional legislative history to determine that Congress did not intend a preclusive effect only for patent-based cases. Because the Sany case was not a patent-based case, the district court found that ITC determinations regarding trade secret misappropriation could be entitled to preclusive effect. [...]the same underlying standards apply to both Wisconsin trade secret law and federal trade secret law. [...]the court concluded that each factor was met in precluding Sany from relitigating the allegations of trade secret misappropriation in district court and granted partial summary judgment for Manitowoc. [...]Sany could not have raised these counterclaims in the ITC as they would have been subjected to mandatory removal under 19 U.S.C. 1337(c).
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_2036752071</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2036752071</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_reports_20367520713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0NLAw07U0NIngYOAqLs4yMDA0MzM252QQDylKTElVCE5NLkotUfDJLMlMTyzJzM_jYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMSm6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8UWpBflFJcXxRgbGZuamRgbmhsZEKQIAiPMoXA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2036752071</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Trade Secret Litigation</title><source>ABI/INFORM Global (ProquesT)</source><creator>Hogge, Mark ; Maheshwari, Shailendra K ; Jackson, Nicholas</creator><creatorcontrib>Hogge, Mark ; Maheshwari, Shailendra K ; Jackson, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><description>The Federal Circuit in Texas Instruments analyzed congressional legislative history to determine that Congress did not intend a preclusive effect only for patent-based cases. Because the Sany case was not a patent-based case, the district court found that ITC determinations regarding trade secret misappropriation could be entitled to preclusive effect. [...]the same underlying standards apply to both Wisconsin trade secret law and federal trade secret law. [...]the court concluded that each factor was met in precluding Sany from relitigating the allegations of trade secret misappropriation in district court and granted partial summary judgment for Manitowoc. [...]Sany could not have raised these counterclaims in the ITC as they would have been subjected to mandatory removal under 19 U.S.C. 1337(c).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1086-914X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc</publisher><subject>District courts ; Employees ; Employment ; Estoppel ; Federal court decisions ; Intellectual property ; International trade ; Litigation ; Medical equipment ; Res judicata ; State court decisions ; State laws ; Tariffs ; Trade secrets</subject><ispartof>The IP Litigator : Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement, 2018-03, Vol.24 (2), p.22-24</ispartof><rights>Copyright Aspen Publishers, Inc. Mar/Apr 2018</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2036752071?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>312,780,784,791,15315,36061,44362</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hogge, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maheshwari, Shailendra K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><title>Trade Secret Litigation</title><title>The IP Litigator : Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement</title><description>The Federal Circuit in Texas Instruments analyzed congressional legislative history to determine that Congress did not intend a preclusive effect only for patent-based cases. Because the Sany case was not a patent-based case, the district court found that ITC determinations regarding trade secret misappropriation could be entitled to preclusive effect. [...]the same underlying standards apply to both Wisconsin trade secret law and federal trade secret law. [...]the court concluded that each factor was met in precluding Sany from relitigating the allegations of trade secret misappropriation in district court and granted partial summary judgment for Manitowoc. [...]Sany could not have raised these counterclaims in the ITC as they would have been subjected to mandatory removal under 19 U.S.C. 1337(c).</description><subject>District courts</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Employment</subject><subject>Estoppel</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Intellectual property</subject><subject>International trade</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Res judicata</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>State laws</subject><subject>Tariffs</subject><subject>Trade secrets</subject><issn>1086-914X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0NLAw07U0NIngYOAqLs4yMDA0MzM252QQDylKTElVCE5NLkotUfDJLMlMTyzJzM_jYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMSm6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8UWpBflFJcXxRgbGZuamRgbmhsZEKQIAiPMoXA</recordid><startdate>20180301</startdate><enddate>20180301</enddate><creator>Hogge, Mark</creator><creator>Maheshwari, Shailendra K</creator><creator>Jackson, Nicholas</creator><general>Aspen Publishers, Inc</general><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180301</creationdate><title>Trade Secret Litigation</title><author>Hogge, Mark ; Maheshwari, Shailendra K ; Jackson, Nicholas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_reports_20367520713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>District courts</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Employment</topic><topic>Estoppel</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Intellectual property</topic><topic>International trade</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Res judicata</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>State laws</topic><topic>Tariffs</topic><topic>Trade secrets</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hogge, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maheshwari, Shailendra K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (ProquesT)</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The IP Litigator : Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hogge, Mark</au><au>Maheshwari, Shailendra K</au><au>Jackson, Nicholas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Trade Secret Litigation</atitle><jtitle>The IP Litigator : Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement</jtitle><date>2018-03-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>22</spage><epage>24</epage><pages>22-24</pages><issn>1086-914X</issn><abstract>The Federal Circuit in Texas Instruments analyzed congressional legislative history to determine that Congress did not intend a preclusive effect only for patent-based cases. Because the Sany case was not a patent-based case, the district court found that ITC determinations regarding trade secret misappropriation could be entitled to preclusive effect. [...]the same underlying standards apply to both Wisconsin trade secret law and federal trade secret law. [...]the court concluded that each factor was met in precluding Sany from relitigating the allegations of trade secret misappropriation in district court and granted partial summary judgment for Manitowoc. [...]Sany could not have raised these counterclaims in the ITC as they would have been subjected to mandatory removal under 19 U.S.C. 1337(c).</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Aspen Publishers, Inc</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1086-914X
ispartof The IP Litigator : Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement, 2018-03, Vol.24 (2), p.22-24
issn 1086-914X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_reports_2036752071
source ABI/INFORM Global (ProquesT)
subjects District courts
Employees
Employment
Estoppel
Federal court decisions
Intellectual property
International trade
Litigation
Medical equipment
Res judicata
State court decisions
State laws
Tariffs
Trade secrets
title Trade Secret Litigation
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T16%3A07%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Trade%20Secret%20Litigation&rft.jtitle=The%20IP%20Litigator%20:%20Devoted%20to%20Intellectual%20Property%20Litigation%20and%20Enforcement&rft.au=Hogge,%20Mark&rft.date=2018-03-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=22&rft.epage=24&rft.pages=22-24&rft.issn=1086-914X&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2036752071%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_reports_20367520713%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2036752071&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true