So much for the case law. But what is a trade secret owner to do — both in the case and proactively before the case commences

Previously we addressed some of the key omissions in Unified Patents’ article “FRAND SCAM.”

Last month, Unified Patents, also known as a PTAB reverse troll, launched its new service called Unified Consulting.

As we have written previously, during the course of a United States litigation — whether, under the new, federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) or the older state-adopted Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA)

There is no doubt that the number of patents declared as potentially essential to technical standards is not an indication of essentiality; its only purpose is to make those declared patents accessible on FRAND terms should they ever become essential.

In my prior article addressing confidentiality agreements, I reviewed how to identify a company’s intangible assets and how to protect them with an NDA.

The remedies a court can impose on behalf of a standard-essential patent owner whose Essential Patents are infringed, and even the remedies an Essential Patents owner requests became an especially contentious question between 2013-2015.

While companies are starting to better appreciate the role trade secrets can play in underpinning their intellectual capital, proactive trade secret management is still a very much neglected activity.

One of the most important developments in the world economy has been the increased importance of ideas and innovation.

After termination or expiration, the company should require the manufacturer to provide extensive transition services to the company.