Lecturer, Federal Judicial Center IP course for Federal Judges (1999-2009 and current).Adjunct Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law (1983-1986).Adjunct Professor, University of California at Berkeley (1998-2009 and current).Served as diplomat working with national government agencies and NGOs in every region of the world. Managed diverse staff from more than 60 countries. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (2009-2014)ĭeputy Director General, responsible for operation of the international patent system (PCT), as well as programs for global development of patent laws and of innovation policies.
#James pooley oplc pro
Served frequently as judge pro tem and special master.
#James pooley oplc trial
Extensive trial experience, including jury trials, as well as ADR, acting as advocate and as neutral arbitrator.
Private attorney, California (1973-20-current)Ĭivil trial practice in state and federal courts, focusing on commercial technology-related litigation in a variety of areas such as securities, R&D contracts and software, but ultimately with a heavy concentration in trade secret and patent matters. Expert in trade secret management and litigation regarding trade secrets and patents.
Recent matters (that is, since 2015) have involved engagements on behalf of the following parties (confidential engagements are not listed):Īrbitrator, Special Master, Expert – IP and Technology DisputesĪDR neutral, judge pro tem, and special master for courts handling complex trade secret, patent and technology-related commercial disputes. Clients’ desire for secrecy is also why we are seeing an increase in the number of private arbitrations, which can be kept out of the public eye, compared to litigation, which is in a public forum.Following his return from diplomatic service in 2015 he has acted as litigation counsel in selected matters while focusing much of his work on arbitration, advisory and expert assignments. I believe the passage of the DTSA will reinforce the inclination to keep some IP as a trade secret. We see more clients actively debating whether to try to protect their IP through patents, or whether they might better keep the information secret and protect it under trade secrets law. The value of intellectual property, however, continues to increase. These changes to patent law have made it more difficult to enforce patents.
Further, the America Invents Act, which was signed into law September 2011, provides for tougher patent review proceedings. Akamai, increasing the volume of patent litigation. The Supreme Court has ruled on several patent-related matters, such as Alice Corp vs. Gerardi: We have seen a steady increase in trade secret litigation and even more arbitrations given the recent changes to US patent laws, and given that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) was recently signed into law, there will surely be even more activity going forward. This is driven in part by the fact that arbitration proceedings are generally – but not always – confidential and the relative ease of enforcing any award. We have also seen indications that arbitration is becoming a more popular way of resolving commercial trade secrets disputes, especially where international parties and transactions are involved. Interestingly, the litigation has not been focused in one or two specific sectors. The courts have regularly shown willingness – wherever possible – to protect businesses and to uphold reasonable restrictions contained within contracts of employment. From this activity it is possible to discern a trend of judicial sympathy towards employers. CD: Reflecting on the last 12-18 months, could you provide an overview of trade secret litigation activity? What overarching trends and developments have you witnessed?įroud: The number of cases involving employee competition, breaches of confidence and team moves has remained steady during this period.
0 kommentar(er)
