Insights

Washington – February 8, 2024: Crowell & Moring secured a resounding victory for ScentAir Technologies, LLC on Friday, January 26th in ScentAir’s long-running patent infringement battle against competitor Prolitec, when a Delaware federal jury found ScentAir did not infringe Prolitec’s asserted patents. This win marks another milestone in ScentAir's history of successfully defending its innovative technologies and intellectual property from Prolitec’s misguided assertions of patent infringement.

Washington, D.C. – May 24, 2023: Crowell & Moring secured another win on behalf of ScentAir Technologies, LLC in its long-running patent infringement dispute with competitor Prolitec Inc. On Monday, Prolitec was forced to withdraw the assertion of one of its patents because there was no merit to its infringement theory. This is the latest in a long string of wins against Prolitec by ScentAir, a global leader in scent marketing for many of the world’s most recognized retail and hospitality brands.

San Francisco – October 27, 2022: Kids in Need of Defense recognized Crowell & Moring lawyers Molly Jones and Suzanne Rode for their work supporting pro bono matters for the organization. Jones was named the Pro Bono Advocate of the Year by KIND’s San Francisco office and Rode received a KINDness Matters Award. KIND was founded by the Microsoft Corporation and UNHCR Special Envoy Angelina Jolie, and “is the leading national organization that works to ensure that no refugee or immigrant child faces immigration court alone.”

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “the Agency”) voted 3-2 along partisan lines in a special public meeting to adopt the “Non-Compete Clause Rule” (the “Final Rule”), which will prohibit most employee non-competes with retroactive effect, except existing non-compete provisions of “senior executives.”  The Final Rule will also ban future non-compete agreements, including for senior executives, with limited exceptions.  The rule will not become effective until 120 days after publication in the Federal Register, and covered employers will be required to comply with the Final Rule by that effective date, which could come as early as August this year.  By the FTC’s own estimate, this ban could affect up to one-in-five American workers.

On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a case with significant implications for the application of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This case involved the importation of two transcatheter heart valve systems by Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., an India-based medical device company, to San Francisco for a medical conference. According to Meril, these heart valve systems, part of Meril’s Myval System designed to treat heart disease, were never displayed or offered for sale at the conference but were instead stored in a bag in a hotel closet and later in a storage room. The Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Meril brings to light the nuances of applying the safe harbor provision in patent infringement cases.

The California Office of the Attorney General issued its first opinion interpreting the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) on March 10, 2022, addressing the issue of whether a consumer has a right to know the inferences that a business holds about the consumer. The AG concluded that, unless a statutory exception applies, internally generated inferences that a business holds about the consumer are personal information within the meaning of the CCPA and must be disclosed to the consumer, upon request. The consumer has the right to know about the inferences, regardless of whether the inferences were generated internally by the business or obtained by the business from another source. Further, while the CCPA does not require a business to disclose its trade secrets in response to consumers’ requests for information, the business cannot withhold inferences about the consumer by merely asserting that they constitute a “trade secret.”

Join us for a webinar discussion as we cover what you need to know about the big cases, changes, and developments relating to trade secrets from the past year. Our discussion will cover three key areas: