The New York Court of Appeals recently endorsed the trial court’s discretion to grant leave to amend a complaint under CPLR 3025 (b), holding that when the appellate court dismisses the plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice, and the original action remained pending in the trial court with defendants’ counterclaims, the trial court may grant plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint.

Picture this: You’ve just been retained by a new client who has been named as a defendant in a complex commercial litigation. While the client has solid grounds to be dismissed from the case at an early stage via a dispositive motion, the client is also facing cost constraints. This forces you to get creative when crafting a budget for your client’s defense. You remember the shiny new toy that is generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”). You plan to use AI to help save costs on the initial research, and even potentially assist with brief writing. It seems you’ve found a practical solution to resolve all your client’s problems. Not so fast.

On March 4, 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled in Niedermeier v. FCA that consumers forced to trade in or sell their defective vehicles due to a manufacturer’s failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code section 1793 et seq., (the “Act”) should not have their restitution reduced by the money they received from the trade-in or sale.

In July 2019, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down a judgment in a case that concerned the extent and operation of the principle of open justice (Cape v Dring). The question before the UKSC was how much of the written material placed before the court in a civil action should be accessible to those who are not parties to the proceedings and how it should be made accessible to them.

On November 1, 2023, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California awarded damages to Skye Orthobiologics, LLC (“Skye”) and Human Regenerative Technologies, LLC (“HRT”) for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty of loyalty by Skye’s former employee (“Defendant”). While Plaintiffs Skye and HRT did not succeed on their claim of trade secret misappropriation, they were able to succeed in showing Defendant misappropriated confidential information in breach of his employment agreements.

Proving access to and use of trade secrets are core elements in a trade secrets misappropriation case.  Recent rulings in a trade secrets action filed by Allergan against its competitor Revance Therapeutics (“Revance”) provide helpful guidance on what is sufficient to plead these elements. There, the court explained what facts are—and are not—sufficient to infer access to and use of trade secrets allegedly misappropriated. The court also explained how examining the similarity of design may help in this analysis. Finally, the court clarified that the ability to reverse engineer alone may not always preclude trade secret protection.  

In an era where trade secret misappropriation battles can shape corporate landscapes, the Apple v. Rivos case stands as a stark reminder of the importance of diligent onboarding practices when it comes to trade secrets.  In this case, the court’s scrutiny of employee conduct underscores a crucial lesson: companies should ensure that new hires refrain from carrying confidential information from their previous employers. As exemplified by defendant Rivos, making an effort to remind new hires to avoid retaining confidential information can also go a long way.Here, we discuss the intricacies of the Apple v. Rivos case and provide several takeaways.

It has been eight months since the Supreme Court’s landmark copyright fair use decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Art, Inc. v. Goldsmith. Much has been written on the subject, including in this forum, but in many ways it was a narrow decision. The Court held that the commercial licensing of Orange Prince, a work in Andy Warhol’s Prince series based on a photograph by Lynn Goldsmith, was not protected under the first factor of the four-factor fair use test under 17 U.S.C. § 107. Its discussion of the transformative use test emphasized the similarity of the uses the works were put to (depicting Prince on magazine covers), rather than the characteristics of the works themselves. This, the Court said, prevents judges from acting as art critics to determine the aesthetic differences between, or meanings behind, artistic works.