MVA Litigation Blog

On July 29, 2014, North Carolina Congressman George Holding introduced the Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014, H.R. 5233, which seeks to create a private federal remedy for victims of trade secret theft.  Representative Holding introduced the bill with five co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, affirming in his statement the importance of protecting businesses from the damage caused by the loss of trade secrets:

American businesses face relentless cyber security threats every day, costing our economy billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs each year.  As a way to help ...

The House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade considered and approved the Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2014 (“TROL Act”) with a 13-6 vote.  The purpose of the TROL Act is to establish that certain bad faith communications made in connection with the assertion of a United States patent are considered unfair or deceptive acts or practices under section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)).  The Act was passed with minor amendment to the provision that establishes an affirmative defense that ...

In a recent post, we discussed the D.C. Circuit’s consideration of the District Court’s decision in U.S. ex.rel Barko v. Halliburton Co. et al., Case No. 05-01276 (D.D.C. 2014), which provided an alarming perspective on the applicability of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine to internal investigations conducted pursuant to government regulatory compliance requirements.  The District Court had ruled that the privilege and work product doctrine did not apply to communications generated during the course of an internal investigation, because the ...

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Family Dollar Stores, Inc.’s petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Scott, et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 12-1610 (4th Cir. Oct., 16, 2013).  The Fourth Circuit had overturned the District Court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s motion to amend its employment discrimination-based class action complaint on the grounds that “as a matter of law plaintiffs cannot satisfy the Rule 23(a) commonality requirement because the alleged gender discrimination was a result of 'subjective ...

The highly anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U. S. ____ (2014) (June 23, 2014) left intact the fraud-on-the-market theory established by the Supreme Court in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U. S. 224 (1988), which is the bedrock upon which securities class actions have rested for nearly thirty years. However, the Halliburton decision provided defendant companies with an avenue for early escape from the impending pressures to settle meritless class litigation by securing their right to rebut the Basic presumption of classwide ...

The internal investigation is a critical tool for companies operating in the current environment of stringent regulatory oversight and government scrutiny. The attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine are sacred cornerstones upon which companies rely when engaging counsel to investigate whether wrongdoing has occurred and to devise the best strategies for addressing the outcome of any such investigation. Recent orders by the federal District Court for the District of Columbia in U.S. ex.rel Barko v. Halliburton Co. et al., Case No. 05-01276 (D.D.C. 2014)

The 2013 General Assembly convened its 2014 Regular Session on Wednesday, May 14, 2014 with the introduction of House Bill 1032 The Abusive Patent Assertions Act by primary sponsor Representative Tom Murry (Rep).  The Bill also is sponsored by Representatives Conrad, Lambeth, S. Martin, Pittman, Saine, and  Whitmire.  The Act recognizes that the assertion of bad‑faith patent infringement claims poses a threat to North Carolina companies via costly and time-consuming litigation that may impose pressure to settle meritless claims.  The practice also “undermine[s] North ...

In an April 25, 2014 article published in Bloomberg BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, MVA Intellectual Property Member Mark Wilson examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S.Ct. 843 (2014) in which the High Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and held that the burden of proof remains with the patentee even in declaratory judgment actions filed by licensees. You can read Wilson’s article here

Non-competition and confidentiality agreements can serve as invaluable tools to safeguard against the loss of confidential and proprietary information through current and former employees. However, recent state and federal cases serve as a critical reminder that these agreements may fail to protect companies if they are poorly crafted with arguably over broad restrictions or unsupported by sufficient consideration. We discuss two scenarios presented by AmeriGas Propane, LP v. Coffey, 2014 NCBC 4 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2014) and Flex Frac Logistics, L.L.C. v. NLRB, 198 ...

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON DOJ OVERSIGHT: The House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing regarding oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice during which Attorney General Eric Holder testified.  A webcast of the hearing and testimony can be found here. Posted by Tony Lathrop, Apr. 28 2014