The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: Leveraging the New Federal Framework to Protect IP – Webinar

We invite you to attend a webinar – The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: Leveraging the New Federal Framework to Protect IP – co-presented by Steve Auvil of Squire Patton Boggs. Steve will address key provisions of the DTSA , outlining what companies and their counsel need to know about protecting and enforcing IP rights. The program will cover:

  • Overview of important sections of the DTSA
  • Differences between Uniform Trade Secret Act (which almost all states use in some form) and the DTSA
  • Effect on state trade secret laws and causes of action
  • Changes required in agreements and policies with employees, contractors and consultants
  • Best practices under the DTSA

The webinar, organized by Strafford, will take place on Tuesday, July 26, 2016 from 1:00-2:30 p.m. edt.

Squire Patton Boggs has 10 complimentary registrations available on a first-come, first-served basis. If you would like to take advantage of this offer, please email Strafford at

This program is eligible for up to 1.5 MCLE credits in certain states.  For more information and to register, visit the Strafford website.

Brexit and Intellectual Property Rights

On 19 July, we ran a webinar for clients entitled ‘Brexit: What could happen to my IP rights?’  We considered how IP protection in the UK will be affected by Brexit and discussed how IP filing and management strategies might be adapted now.  The webinar was well attended and client feedback was that it had been clear, comprehensive and useful.  To listen to a recording of the webinar, please click here.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the presenters – Florian Traub and Carl Rohsler.

We hope you will be able to join us for future webinars.


European Commission Finds Privacy Shield “Adequate” But Uncertainty Remains

As we predicted  last week, the European Commission has moved swiftly to issue an adequacy decision that formally adopts an agreement finalized with the US Department of Commerce in June concerning arrangements to legitimize the transfer of EU personal data to the US. The much anticipated “EU-US Privacy Shield” arrangements will replace the Safe Harbor regime, which was invalidated by the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) in October 2015.

Please see our alert for details about the path ahead, including key concerns, procedural and substantive requirements and the impact Brexit.


ALJ Lord Suspends Section 337 Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Products Because of Overlap with Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Laws

3d render of hitting judge hammer with added motion blur


ALJ Lord has determined, sua sponte, to suspend the USITC’s Section 337 investigations in Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1002, on the grounds that the investigation “comes at least ‘in part’ within the purview of the antidumping and countervailing laws . . . [and] therefore requires that the Commission notify the Secretary of Commerce” before determining how to proceed.

The ITC only recently instituted the investigation that is now suspended (its Notice issued on May 26th). The investigation is based on alleged violations of Section 337 by the Chinese steel industry, including antitrust, false designation of origin, and trade secret claims. Section 337(b)(3) requires that the ITC notify the Secretary of Commerce “[w]henever, in the course of an investigation under this section, the Commission has reason to believe . . . that a matter, in whole or in part, may come within the purview of” the antidumping or countervailing duty laws. The ALJ notes that “the antitrust claims explicitly rely upon determinations by the Commission and the Commerce Department that the Chinese government subsidizes the Chinese steel industry, and that Chinese steel manufacturers sell their products at less than fair value” and that the “false designation of origin claims are based explicitly upon Respondents’ alleged evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders issued by the Commerce Department.” The ALJ further notes the pendency of several ongoing Commerce Department investigations related to the steel products at issue in the investigation. Invoking a little-used Commission Rule that permits suspension of a Section 337 investigation on motion or sua sponte by the presiding ALJ or Commission “because of proceedings before the Secretary of Commerce,” ALJ Lord ordered suspension of the investigation “to allow the Commission to provide the statutorily required notice to the Secretary of Commerce.”

Although the ALJ’s order does not specify a time frame for the suspension, it suggests that “[b]efore lifting the suspension of this Investigation, the Commission may consider whether it is appropriate to wait for a response from the Department of Commerce or to further investigate U.S. Steel’s claims before remanding to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings.” The ALJ’s order was issued as an “Initial Determination,” which means that it is subject to Commission review.

EU Member States Pave Way for Approval of EU-U.S. Privacy Shield

EU and USA. Euro flag and USA flag.

European Commission Vice-President Andrus Ansip and DG Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová jointly announced today that representatives of EU Member States have voted to approve the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.  The Privacy Shield is the heavily negotiated framework for legitimizing transatlantic data flows that will replace the Safe Harbor arrangements, which were invalidated following a decision issued by the EU Court of Justice in October 2015.

The press release announcing the vote praised the Privacy Shield for ensuring “a high level of protection for individuals and legal certainty for business.”

Highlights of the Privacy Shield include:

  • the obligation for organizations handling EU personal data to comply with the more rigorous Privacy Shield rules applicable to transatlantic data flows;
  • written assurance by the U.S. Government that “the access of public authorities for law enforcement and national security will be subject to clear limitations, safeguards and oversight mechanisms” while ruling out indiscriminate mass surveillance of European citizens’ data; and
  • protection of the fundamental rights of EU citizens through implementation of a number of accessible and affordable redress mechanisms, including through the newly created Ombudsman.

It is expected that the Privacy Shield will formally be approved by a decision of the European Commission early next week. A meeting of the EU Commission is scheduled to take place on Monday, and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker is expected to visit Brussels on Tuesday.   Although many U.S. companies can now breathe a sigh of relief, many will find that the new rules and enforcement mechanisms established by the Privacy Shield documents present compliance challenges.  And the Privacy Shield arrangements, once approved, may be short-lived if, as expected, they are subject to litigation similar to the legal challenge that led to the invalidation of the Safe Harbor program.

Why Did the Federal Circuit Treat Software Claims Differently in Enfish?


Patents directed to computer software are not inherently abstract under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 101. For the first time since the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Alice v. CLS Bank the Federal Circuit in Enfish v. Microsoft found that a software patent was not directed to an abstract concept. The Court moreover held unequivocally that improvements in software can be as patent-eligible as improvements to the machines that run the software under the Alice test for patent eligibility.

My article takes an in-depth look at Enfish and offers thoughts on whether this decision can serve as a guiding light for distinguishing patent-eligible from abstract concepts in software.

Weekly Data Privacy Alert – 4 July 2016

Please click here to read the latest data privacy alert from the Squire Patton Boggs Data Protection & Cybersecurity team. This week’s alert covers news from:


  • EU Council Agrees on New Measures Against Cybercrimes


  • The CNIL Opens a Period of Public Consultation on the GDPR
  • The French State Council Rules on Rights to Access Personal Data of the Deceased


  • The House of Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport Committee Publishes a Report on Cyber Security


  • Industry Agreement on Facial ID Privacy Best Practices
  • Reform of Electronic Communications Privacy Act Held Up in US Senate
  • District of Columbia Circuit Affrms FCC Authority to Regulate Broadband Service Provider Privacy Practices

For more information on any of these items, or data privacy issues generally, please feel free to call any of the following individuals:

Paul Besozzi (Washington DC)

Annette Demmel (Berlin)

Caroline Egan (Birmingham)

Stéphanie Faber (Paris)

Francesca Fellowes (Leeds)


Weekly Data Privacy Alert – 27 June 2016

Please click here to read the latest data privacy alert from the Squire Patton Boggs Data Protection & Cybersecurity team. This week’s alert covers news from:


  • EU and US Sign Umbrella Agreement


  • France Launches New Do-Not-Call List
  • French Supreme Court Rules on Privacy Rules


  • Thüringen Data Protection Commissioner: Private Video Recordings Require Notification
  • Hamburg Data Protection Officer Has Fined Companies for Illicit Data Transfers to the US


  • Amendment to Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act Placed on Hold

For more information on any of these items, or data privacy issues generally, please feel free to call any of the following individuals:

Annette Demmel (Berlin)

Caroline Egan (Birmingham)

Stéphanie Faber (Paris)

Francesca Fellowes (Leeds)

Koy Miller (Washington DC)

Product liability in Hong Kong

Squire Patton Boggs is pleased to contribute to the 14th edition of Product Liability 2016. This International Comparative Legal Guide (ICLG) offers a practical cross-border insight into product liability work which covers common issues in laws and regulations across 25 jurisdictions. In their chapter, David Goh and Bindu Janardhanan, two senior lawyers with significant expertise in this area, address a series of questions designed to provide basic knowledge of the legal issues surrounding product liability in Hong Kong.  To read their chapter on this topic, please click here


Webinar – Brexit: What could happen to my IP rights?

The UK’s withdrawal from the EU has significant implications for IP protection in the UK.  EU rights, including the EU trade mark, will no longer cover the UK, pan- European injunctions will not be available, or effective in, the UK and the UK could be left outside the new Unitary Patent regime. European Union flag against European Parliament

We are holding a webinar to discuss the wider impact of Brexit on IP rights.  We will be considering which IP rights will be affected by Brexit, and how.  We will also suggest how IP filing and management strategies should be changed now.  The webinar is scheduled for 19 July at 4pm BST (UK) (11-Noon EDT).  For more information, and to register, please click here.  We hope you can join us.