18809 research outputs found
Sort by
The Metes and Bounds of Federal Trade Secret Protections: Deriving Cohesive Damages Principles Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act
Get PDFThe Defend Trade Secrets Act launched trade secret law, which formerly only reached federal courts in diversity cases or cases involving espionage, into the national spotlight. As these cases begin to progress to trial, courts face new questions about how to appropriately measure monetary damages for trade secret claims. Because many courts take a “flexible and imaginative” approach to trade secret damages generally and most state trade secret statutes do not require damages as a part of a successful trade secret liability case, most courts that have considered damages methodology challenges to DTSA claims have failed to employ gatekeeping to ensure that a proposed methodology is appropriately tied to the specific injury alleged by the trade secret owner—a requirement for just about any form of monetary relief under federal law. And sound damages principles are necessary given the inherent proof problems in trade secret law, as unlike other forms of intellectual property, there is no formal declaration of what the “metes and bounds” of the proprietary information is.
This Article offers a novel framework to guide trade secret damages in the absence of a cohesive framework that takes the trade secret owner’s actual injury into account. After surveying the current damages landscape, I turn to both patent law and state doctrinal developments to justify a few methodological requirements to guide trade secret damages inquiries. First, a trade secret owner must determine the type of injury alleged under the DTSA—acquisition, disclosure, or use. In cases where a trade secret was merely acquired or internally disclosed without reaching the public, a trade secret owner may not receive monetary relief. When a misappropriator uses the trade secret internally, such as to aid in research and development of a product, a trade secret owner may recover the misappropriator’s avoided costs under an unjust enrichment theory. Finally, a trade secret owner may pursue any damages theory if the misappropriator has publicly disclosed or used the alleged trade secret. In addition to these requirements, I also suggest that trade secret owners must take care to apportion the alleged damages to the trade secret information itself and that the hypothetical negotiation framework used to determine an appropriate damages figure be adjusted to account for the realities of a trade secret injury
An Electoral College Compromise Constitutional Amendment: Bridging Partisan Divides to Improve Presidential Elections
Get PDFAbolishing the Electoral College in favor of using a national popular vote to elect the president and vice president is unlikely to attract sufficient bipartisan support to reach the high thresholds for amending the U.S. Constitution. However, the Electoral College has flawed features that both Democrats and Republicans might support reforming because those defects can undermine either party’s candidates. This Essay highlights three such defects. First, contingent elections—a process by which Congress selects the president and vice president if no ticket wins a majority of electoral votes—are deeply unrepresentative of the American electorate while also being subject to unpredictable dysfunction and partisan manipulation. Second, presidential electors—the individuals who are expected to transmit the will of voters—can attempt to exceed their ministerial roles to either party’s detriment. Third, the constitutional provision that lets states determine how to appoint their electors is ambiguously drafted and makes it possible for states to bar voters from participating in presidential elections
Abortion Travel Restrictions Under the Dormant Commerce Clause After \u3ci\u3eNational Pork Producers Council v. Ross\u3c/i\u3e
Get PDFSince Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, twelve states have banned abortion entirely, and seven states have banned abortion earlier in pregnancy than the standard set in Roe v. Wade. As abortion access dwindles, patients increasingly cross state lines to seek reproductive healthcare. In response, antiabortion state officials and lawmakers have made efforts to restrict interstate travel for abortion care.
This Note examines abortion travel restrictions under the “Dormant” Commerce Clause doctrine, which limits state laws that burden interstate commerce. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed but narrowed the judge-made doctrine in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. This Note analyzes state regulations of interstate abortion travel under the newly clarified two-tier Dormant Commerce Clause test. It concludes that such laws violate the Dormant Commerce Clause by (1) impermissibly depriving out-of-state businesses of their competitive advantages and (2) imposing a clearly excessive burden on interstate commerce relative to the laws’ purported benefits
562 West 174th Equities LLC v. Mednik
Get PDFIn this holdover based on alleged lease expiration, the key issue was whether the unit was rent-stabilized. The landlord initially claimed deregulation based on high-rent vacancy but had previously filed contradictory claims asserting rent-stabilization in other proceedings, including a newer, concurrent case. The tenant argued rent-stabilization based on regulatory filings. The court found the multiple filings and reversals in position by the landlord created a confusing and prejudicial scenario. Because the newer case raised the same issue, the court dismissed the current proceeding without prejudice. Practice Note: Landlords should avoid simultaneously prosecuting parallel cases involving contradictory regulatory claims, as it may undermine their credibility and prejudice their position. In this holdover based on alleged lease expiration, the key issue was whether the unit was rent-stabilized. The landlord initially claimed deregulation based on high-rent vacancy but had previously filed contradictory claims asserting rent-stabilization in other proceedings, including a newer, concurrent case. The tenant argued rent-stabilization based on regulatory filings. The court found the multiple filings and reversals in position by the landlord created a confusing and prejudicial scenario. Because the newer case raised the same issue, the court dismissed the current proceeding without prejudice. Practice Note: Landlords should avoid simultaneously prosecuting parallel cases involving contradictory regulatory claims, as it may undermine their credibility and prejudice their position
Brazilia Leasing L.P. v. Watts
Get PDFThe court dismissed a licensee holdover petition after a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the petitioner had knowledge that the respondent lacked mailbox access. The respondent testified that she had informed the petitioner\u27s personnel of her lack of mailbox access in December 2023, and this testimony was unchallenged. The court found the respondent\u27s testimony credible, and since the petitioner had knowledge of the lack of mailbox access at the time of service, the court ruled the service was improper. The petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Practice Note: Ensure service complies with jurisdictional requirements, especially when a tenant has no access to essential services like mail
New York City Housing Authority managed by Seth Low Houses v. Ingram
Get PDFFollowing a default eviction in a nonpayment case, the tenant and her three children were rendered homeless for over a month. The court found restoration warranted despite nonpayment due to the unlawful eviction of unserved occupants, including a child who had just turned 18. The landlord’s blanket policy of naming only the head of household in nonpayment proceedings violated RPAPL §§749(1)-(2). The court was persuaded by the tenant\u27s policy argument highlighting NYC’s homeless student crisis and ordered restoration forthwith under RPAPL §749(3), prior to arrears being paid, citing equitable grounds and pending emergency rental assistance. Practice Note: Courts may exercise discretion to restore possession before arrears are paid when landlords unlawfully evict non-named occupants and serious hardship is shown
White Living Trust v. Campbell
Get PDFHandwritten opinion. In this holdover proceeding without stated grounds, the landlord moved to file a late affidavit of service 125 days after the initial appearance. The tenant opposed, invoking Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman, arguing the delay was fatal. The landlord cited Siedlecki v. Doscher, claiming lack of prejudice, but failed to substantiate the claim. The court found the landlord\u27s delay unjustified and prejudicial in light of procedural requirements, especially given the tenant\u27s timely and persuasive opposition. The motion was denied, and the case dismissed. Practice Note: Courts strictly enforce timely service compliance; late affidavits without detailed justification and proof of lack of prejudice will likely result in dismissal
Matter of 901 Bklyn Realty, LLC v. Manigat
Get PDFIn a non-primary residence holdover proceeding, the Appellate Division affirmed the Appellate Term\u27s decision, disqualifying the tenant\u27s stepdaughter from succeeding to her stepfather\u27s rent-stabilized tenancy. The court held that succession rights must be asserted in a timely fashion, typically when a lease renewal offer is made after the tenant of record permanently vacates. The tenant\u27s stepdaughter failed to claim succession to her stepfather\u27s tenancy immediately after his death and did not seek succession to the subsequent tenancy of her step-sister. The court emphasized that the tenant for succession purposes usually refers to the most recent tenant of record. Recent amendments to Public Housing Law concerning permanently vacated did not alter this outcome. The landlord\u27s motion for summary judgment was granted, and final judgment was awarded to the landlord
Emerald Lofts LLC. v. Echevarria
Get PDFIn a no-grounds holdover, the landlord sought to evict a tenant, claiming the unit was exempt from the Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL) due to the tenant\u27s Section 8 voucher. The court granted the landlord\u27s motion to amend their pleadings to comply with RPAPL § 741(5-a) requirements. However, the court then granted the tenant\u27s motion to dismiss, ruling that a portable Section 8 voucher does not automatically exempt a unit from GCEL under RPL § 214(5), as it doesn\u27t regulate rent or eviction terms like other housing programs