The case against federalizing trade secrecy

Virginia Law Review

Volumn 101, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 317-394

  Seaman, Christopher B ^a  

^a WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929087042     PISSN: 00426601     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (277)

1. See Comm'n on the Theft of Am. Intellectual Prop., The IP Commission Report 1 (2013), available at http://ipcommission.org/report/IP-Commission-Report-052213.pdf
2. Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Col-lection and Industrial Espionage, 2009-2011, at 4 (2011), available at http://www.ncix.gov/publications/reports/fecie-all/Foreign-Economic-Collection-2011.pdf
3. Effects of Intellectual Property Infringement and Indige-nous Innovation Policies on the U.S. Economy, Inv. No. 332-519, USITC Pub. 4226, at xiv (May 2011), available at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4226.pdf
4. see also Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Exec. Office of the President, 2013 Special 301 Report 4-6 (2013), available at http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/05012013%202013%20Special%20301%20Report.pdf
5. See David E. Sanger et al., China's Army Seen as Tied to Hacking Against U.S., N.Y. Times, Feb. 19, 2013, at A1
6. see also Mandiant, APT1: Exposing One of China's Cyber Es-pionage Units 3, 25 (2013), available at http://intelreport.mandiant.com/Mandiant-APT1-Report.pdf
7. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, Administration Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets 8 (2013), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/19/launch-administration-s-strategy-mitigate-theft-us-trade-secrets.5Id. at 1
8. See Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 493 (1974) ("Congress, by its si-lence over these many years, has seen the wisdom of allowing the States to enforce trade se-cret protection.")
9. David S. Almeling, Four Reasons to Enact a Federal Trade Secrets Act, 19 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 769, 770 (2009) ("Trade secrets stand alone as the only major type of intellectual property governed primarily by state law.").
10. See Robert G. Bone, A New Look at Trade Secret Law: Doctrine in Search of Justifica-tion, 86 Calif. L. Rev. 241, 247 (1998)
11. Mark A. Lemley, The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 311, 315 (2008)
12. see Kenneth L. Port, Trademark Extortion: The End of Trademark Law, 65 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 585, 595-600 (2008)
13. Unif. Trade Secrets Act, 14 U.L.A. 536-659 (2005) [hereinafter UTSA]
14. See Elizabeth A. Rowe & Sharon K. Sandeen, Cases and Materials on Trade Secret Law 14 (2012)
15. Michael Risch, Why Do We Have Trade Se-crets?, 11 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 1, 13 (2007)
16. See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 39 cmt. a (1995)
17. Catherine L. Fisk, Working Knowledge: Trade Secrets, Restrictive Covenants in Em-ployment, and the Rise of Corporate Intellectual Property, 1800-1920, 52 Hastings L.J. 441, 451 (2001)
18. see also W.J. Rorabaugh, The Craft Apprentice: From Franklin to the Machine Age in America 32-33 (1986)
19. see also S.R. Epstein, Craft Guilds, Apprenticeship, and Technological Change in Preindustrial Europe, 58 J. Econ. Hist. 684, 694 (1998)
20. See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 39 cmt. a (1995)
21. Margo E.K. Reder & Christine Neylon O'Brien, Managing the Risk of Trade Secret Loss Due to Job Mobility in an Innovation Economy with the Theory of Inevitable Disclosure, 12 J. High Tech. L. 373, 386 (2012)
22. See Doron S. Ben-Atar, Trade Secrets: Intellectual Piracy and the Origins of American Industrial Power 90-93, 104-09 (2004)
23. Newbery v. James, (1817) 35 Eng. Rep. 1011 (Ch.) 1011-12
24. see also 1 Melvin F. Jager, Trade Secrets Law § 2:2 (2013)
25. Vickery v. Welch, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 523, 525-27 (1837).
26. See Donald S. Chisum et al., Understanding Intellectual Property Law § 3B[2], at 203-06 (2d ed. 2011)
27. See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 39 cmt. a (1995)
28. See, e.g., O. & W. Thum Co. v. Tloczynski, 72 N.W. 140, 142 (Mich. 1897).
29. See, e.g., Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. 452, 461 (1868)
30. Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Standard Steel Car Co., 60 A. 4, 9 (Pa. 1904).
31. See, e.g., Nat'l Tube Co. v. E. Tube Co., 13-23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 468, 470-71 (1902), aff'd, 70 N.E. 1127 (Ohio 1903)
32. See, e.g., Eastman Co. v. Reichenbach, 20 N.Y.S. 110, 110, 116 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1892), aff'd sub nom.
33. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Reighenbach, 29 N.Y.S. 1143 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1894)
34. Fralich v. Despar, 30 A. 521, 521-22 (Pa. 1894).
35. John P. Frank, The American Law Institute, 1923-1998, 26 Hofstra L. Rev. 615, 616-19 (1998)
36. see also Arthur L. Corbin, The Restatement of the Common Law by the American Law Institute, 15 Iowa L. Rev. 19, 26-27 (1929)
37. See Ramon A. Klitzke, The Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 64 Marq. L. Rev. 277, 282 (1980)
38. see also Sharon K. Sandeen, The Evolution of Trade Secret Law and Why Courts Commit Error When They Do Not Follow the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 33 Hamline L. Rev. 493, 502 (2010)
39. See Briefing.com v. Jones, 2006 WY 16, 10, 16, 126 P.3d 928, 934, 936
40. see also Christopher Rebel J. Pace, The Case for a Feder-al Trade Secrets Act, 8 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 427, 432-33 (1995)
41. Marina Lao, Federalizing Trade Secrets Law in an Information Economy, 59 Ohio St. L.J. 1633, 1653 (1998).
42. The Case of the Economic Espionage Act, 80 N.C. L. Rev. 853, 912 n.305 (2002)
43. (citing Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 476 (1974)).
44. see also Uniform Law Comm'n, Legislative Enactment Status: Trade Secrets Act: Enactment Status, http://www.uniformlaws.org/LegislativeMap.aspx?title=Trade%20Secrets%20Act (last visited Feb. 23, 2015)
45. See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 39 (1995)
46. See Annemarie Bridy, Trade Secret Prices and High-Tech Devices: How Medical De-vice Manufacturers Are Seeking to Sustain Profits by Propertizing Prices, 17 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 187, 201 n.76 (2009)
47. See Ben Shiffman et al., Intellectual Property Crimes, 49 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 929, 932 (2012)
48. While the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1905-09 (2012)
49. see also Restatement (Third) of Unfair Compe-tition § 39 cmt. b (1995)
50. Peter J.G. Toren, The Prosecution of Trade Secrets Thefts Under Feder-al Law, 22 Pepp. L. Rev. 59, 64 (1994)
51. Francisco J. Morales, Comment, The Property Matrix: An Analytical Tool to Answer the Question, "Is This Property?", 161 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1125, 1138 (2013).
52. See, e.g., United States v. Howley, 707 F.3d 575, 579-81 (6th Cir. 2013);
53. United States v. Martin, 228 F.3d 1, 18-19 (1st Cir. 2000);
54. United States v. Seidlitz, 589 F.2d 152, 153, 155 (4th Cir. 1978);
55. Abbott v. United States, 239 F.2d 310, 311-12 (5th Cir. 1956).
56. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-788, at 6-7 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4021, 4025-26
57. James H.A. Pooley, Mark A. Lemley & Peter J. Toren, Understanding the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 5 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 177, 180 (1997). 8318 U.S.C. §§ 2314-15 (2012).
58. See, e.g., United States v. Bottone, 365 F.2d 389, 391, 393-94 (2d Cir. 1966)
59. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 925 F.2d 1301, 1307 (10th Cir. 1991).
60. See S. Rep. No. 104-359, at 10 (1996)
61. H.R. Rep. No. 104-788, at 6-7 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4021, 4025
62. See R. Mark Halligan, Protection of U.S. Trade Secret Assets: Critical Amendments to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996
63. J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 656, 657-58 & n.11 (2008).
64. Pub. L. No. 104-294, 110 Stat. 3488 (1996)
65. Statement by President William J. Clinton upon Signing H.R. 3723, 32 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 2040 (Oct. 14, 1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4034, 4034
66. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes 177-82, 185-86 (4th ed. 2013)
67. Id. This statutory language was recently amended in response to United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71, 82 (2d Cir. 2012)
68. See generally Rob-ert Damion Jurrens, Note, Fool Me Once: U.S. v. Aleynikov and the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, 28 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 833 (2013)
69. see also Recent Case, Criminal Law-Economic Espionage-Ninth Circuit Upholds First Trial Conviction Under § 1831 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.-United States v. Chung, 659 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, No. 11-1141, 2012 WL 929750 (U.S. Apr. 16, 2012), 125 Harv. L. Rev. 2177, 2177 (2012) ("[S]urprisingly few cases have been prosecuted under the [EEA]." (foot-note omitted)).
70. Chris Carr et al., The Economic Espionage Act: Bear Trap or Mousetrap?, 8 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 159, 199 (2000).
71. See Graham M. Liccardi, Comment, The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: A Vehicle for Litigating Trade Secrets in Federal Court, 8 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 155, 160 (2008).
72. See, e.g., United States v. Trotter, 478 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2007)
73. Nat'l City Bank, N.A. v. Prime Lending, Inc., No. CV-10-034-EFS, 2010 WL 2854247, at ∗4 n.2 (E.D. Wash. July 19, 2010)
74. see also Kyle W. Brenton, Trade Secret Law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Two Problems and Two Solutions, 2009 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol'y 429, 433 (2009)
75. see also Press Release, U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, Facts and Trends Regarding USITC Section 337 Investigations 1 (Apr. 15, 2013), available at http://www.usitc.gov/press-room/documents/featured-news/337facts.pdf
76. See P. Andrew Riley & Jonathan R.K. Stroud, A Survey of Trade Secret Investigations at the International Trade Commission: A Model for Future Litigants, 15 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 41, 44 (2013)
77. See, e.g., 142 Cong. Rec. 27111-12 (1996)
78. Margaret M. Blair & Steven M.H. Wallman, Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles 81 (2001)
79. The Need for a Statutory Solution, 120 U. Pa. L. Rev. 378, 396-401 (1971)
80. see also Eric Holder, U.S. Att'y Gen., Remarks at the Administration Trade Secret Strategy Rollout (Feb. 20, 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2013/ag-speech-1302201.html
81. See Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act of 2012, S. 3389, 112th Cong. (2012).
82. David S. Levine & Sharon K. Sandeen, Professors' Letter in Opposition to the "Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014" (S. 2267) and the "Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014" (H.R. 5233) 4-5 (Aug. 26, 2014), available at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/08/professors%E2%80%99-letter-opposition-%E2%80%9Cdefend-trade-secrets-act-2014%E2%80%9D-s-2267-and-%E2%80%9Ctrade-secrets. The author of this article was a signatory of the pro-fessors' letter.
83. See Business Litigation Update: The Defend Trade Secrets Act: Consequences for Trade Secret Litigation, Thompson Hine LLP, July 21, 2014, at 2, http://www.thompsonhine.com/publications/the-defend-trade-secrets-act-consequences-for-trade-secret-litigation
84. Eric Goldman, Congress is Considering a New Federal Trade Secret Law. Why?, Forbes, (Sept. 16, 2014, 12:14 PM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2014/09/16/congress-is-considering-a-new-federal-trade-secret-law-why/
85. News Release, Office of Sen. Christopher Coons, Senators Coons, Hatch Introduce Bill to Combat Theft of Trade Secrets and Protect Jobs (Apr. 29, 2014), available at http://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/releases/release/senators-coons-hatch-introduce-bill-to-combat-theft-of-trade-secrets-and-protect-jobs.
86. See Defend Trade Secrets Act Introduced in Senate (Covington & Burling LLP) (Apr. 29, 2014), at 1, http://www.cov.com/files/Publication/e0460daa-3911-47c8-8764-7e40c9c4346d/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/ffb7dcde-bed1-499b-b7b5-840823b1ba45/Defend-Trade-Secrets-Act-Introduced-in-Senate.pdf
87. [hereinafter Hearing on Economic Espionage and Trade Secret Theft] (testimony of Drew Greenblatt, President and Owner, Marlin Steel Wire Products) ("State civil trade secret laws alone often are not sufficient to deter and remedy interstate theft."), available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/economic-espionage-and-trade-secret-theft-are-our-laws-adequate-for-todays-threats; id.
88. See Anne L. Kim, Expect to See Trade Secret Legislation Re-Introduced Next Con-gress, Roll Call (Nov. 18, 2014, 5:01 PM), http://blogs.rollcall.com/technocrat/expect-to-see-trade-secret-legislation-re-introduced-next-congress
89. See Trade Secrets: Promoting and Protecting American Innovation, Competitiveness and Market Access in Foreign Markets: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, Intellectu-al Prop., & the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 6 (2014) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Member, S. Subcomm. on Courts, Intellectual Prop., & the Internet), available at http://judiciary.house.gov/-cache/files/5311b6c1-9a4f-49e5-a477-451a3ee228bf/113-97-88436.pdf
90. See H.R. 5233-Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014: All Actions, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5233/all-actions (last visited Dec. 1, 2014).
91. See H.R. 2466-Private Right of Action Against Theft of Trade Secrets Act of 2013: All Actions, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2466/all-actions (last visited Dec. 1, 2014)
92. See S. 1770-FAIR Act: Cosponsors, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1770/cosponsors (last visited Dec. 1, 2014).
93. Press Release, Office of Sen. Jeff Flake, Sen. Flake Introduces Bill to Help Protect U.S. Innovations From Theft (Nov. 22, 2013), http://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/11/sen-flake-introduces-bill-to-help-protect-u-s-innovations-from-theft.
94. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125 (1942);
95. see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 21-22 (2005)
96. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. at 2578;
97. Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 196 (1968)
98. Act of July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 198, invalidated by The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879).
99. The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. at 93-97.
100. see 1 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 5:3 (4th ed. 2009).
101. Act of Feb. 20, 1905, 33 Stat. 724.
102. Lanham Act, Pub. L. No. 79-489, § 6, 60 Stat. 427, 429-30 (1946) (codified as amend-ed at 15 U.S.C. § 1056 (2012)).
103. Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-667, § 103(9), 102 Stat. 3935, 3935-36 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b) (2012)).
104. Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-98, § 3(a), 109 Stat. 985, 985-86
105. See S. Rep. No. 104-359, at 4 (1996)
106. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125, 128-29 (1942).
107. Mark A. Klapow, The Latest Attempt to Federalize Trade Secret Law, Law360, Crowell & Moring (Aug. 1, 2012, 1:57 PM), http://www.crowell.com/files/The-Latest-Attempt-To-Federalize-Trade-Secret-Law.pdf
108. Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, S.B. 953 (enacted May 3, 2013)
109. Linda B. Samuels & Bryan K. Johnson, The Uni-form Trade Secrets Act: The States' Response, 24 Creighton L. Rev. 49, 52 (1990)
110. H.B. 4082, 188th Gen. Court (Mass. 2014)
111. H.B. 27, 188th Gen. Court. (Mass. 2013).
112. See Massachusetts Trade Secret Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42-42A (2012)
113. Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton, 385 N.E.2d 1349, 1354 (Mass. 1979)
114. see also Sutra, Inc. v. Iceland Exp., No. 04-11360-DPW, 2008 WL 2705580, ∗2 (D. Mass. July 10, 2008)
115. David S. Almeling et al., A Statistical Analysis of Trade Secret Litigation in State Courts, 46 Gonz. L. Rev. 57, 76 tbl.5 (2010-11).
116. David S. Almeling et al., A Statistical Analysis of Trade Secret Litigation in Federal Courts, 45 Gonz. L. Rev. 291, 306 tbl.4 (2009-10)
117. see also Michael Risch, An Empirical Look at Trade Secret Law's Shift from Common to Statutory Law, in Intellectual Property and the Common Law 151, 173-74 (Shyamkrishna Balganesh ed., 2013)
118. David S. Almeling, A Practical Case for Federalizing Trade Secret Law, Law360 (June 16, 2009, 12:00 AM), http://www.law360.com/articles/106724/a-practical-case-for-federalizing-trade-secret-law.
119. David S. Almeling, Seven Reasons Why Trade Secrets Are Increasingly Important, 27 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1091, 1106 (2012).
120. See William E. Hilton, What Sort of Improper Conduct Constitutes Misappropriation of a Trade Secret, 30 IDEA 287, 289 (1990)
121. Compare Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 (1939)
122. Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. f (1939)
123. Syntex Ophthalmics, Inc. v. Tsuetaki, 701 F.2d 677, 683 (7th Cir. 1983).
124. Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 314 S.W.2d 763, 776-77 (Tex. 1958)
125. see also Sikes v. McGraw-Edison Co., 671 F.2d 150, 151 (5th Cir. 1982)
126. TianRui Grp. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 661 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
127. Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981)
128. (citing McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 427 (1819)).
129. Gade v. Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992).
130. See Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., 505 U.S. 504, 517 (1992)
131. Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977).
132. S. 2267, 113th Cong. § 2(e) (2014)
133. See, e.g., Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 517
134. United States v. Hsu, 155 F.3d 189, 196 (3d Cir. 1998)
135. Robin J. Effron, Note, Secrets and Spies: Extraterritorial Application of the Economic Espionage Act and the TRIPS Agreement, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1475, 1488 (2003);
136. United States. v. Hsu, 155 F.3d 189, 196 (3d Cir. 1998)
137. See Pamela Samuelson & Suzanne Scotchmer, The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering, 111 Yale L.J. 1575, 1577-78 (2002)
138. See United States v. Case, 309 F. App'x 883, 884-86 (5th Cir. 2009)
139. See Michael E. Solimine, Rethinking Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 383, 407 (1991)
140. For examples of current circuit splits in federal statutory interpretation, see Seton Hall Circuit Review, available at http://scholarship.shu.edu/circuit-review.
141. See Amanda Frost, Overvaluing Uniformity, 94 Va. L. Rev. 1567, 1572 (2008)
142. See Stefanie A. Lindquist & David A. Yalof, Congressional Responses to Federal Cir-cuit Court Decisions, 85 Judicature 61, 66-67 (2001)
143. Compare EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577, 581-84 (1st Cir. 2001)
144. United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2010)
145. United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263, 271 (5th Cir. 2010)
146. Int'l Airport Ctrs., L.L.C. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418, 420-21 (7th Cir. 2006)
147. WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, L.L.C. v. Miller, 687 F.3d 199, 204, 206 (4th Cir. 2012)
148. Unit-ed States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 863 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (same).
149. Am. Intellectual Prop. Law Ass'n, Report of the Trade Secrets Committee 3 (2007)
150. See MicroStrategy, Inc. v. Bus. Objects, S.A., 331 F. Supp. 2d 396, 417 (E.D. Va. 2004)
151. See United States v. Hsu, 40 F. Supp. 2d 623, 630 (E.D. Pa. 1999)
152. Elizabeth A. Rowe, Saving Trade Secret Disclosures on the Internet Through Sequential Preservation, 42 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1, 20 (2007)
153. See Hecny Transp., Inc. v. Chu, 430 F.3d 402, 404 (7th Cir. 2005)
154. see also Victoria A. Cundiff, Reasonable Measures to Protect Trade Secrets in a Digital Environment, 49 IDEA 359, 410 (2009)
155. see also Alan J. Tracey, The Contract in the Trade Secret Ballroom-A Forgotten Dance Partner?, 16 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 47, 79 (2007)
156. See John T. Cross, UTSA Displacement of Other State Law Claims, 33 Hamline L. Rev. 445, 449-50 (2010).
157. See Elizabeth A. Rowe, When Trade Secrets Become Shackles: Fairness and the Inevi-table Disclosure Doctrine, 7 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 167, 188-91 (2005).
158. Evan H. Caminker, Precedent and Prediction: The Forward-Looking Aspects of Inferior Court Decisionmaking, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 38 (1994);
159. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991).
160. Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Patent Experimentalism, 101 Va. L. Rev. 65, 84-87 (2015).
161. See generally Orly Lobel, Intellectual Property and Restrictive Covenants, in Encyclo-pedia of Law and Economics: Labor and Employment Law and Economics 517
162. Ronald J. Gilson, The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants Not to Compete, 74 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 575 (1999)
163. Paul H. Rubin & Peter Shedd, Human Capital and Covenants Not to Compete, 10 J. Legal Stud. 93 (1981)
164. PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1995).
165. Compare Liebert Corp. v. Mazur, 827 N.E.2d 909, 927 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)
166. Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277, 291-94 (Ct. App. 2002)
167. See also Ryan M. Wiesner, Comment, A State-By-State Analysis of Inevitable Disclo-sure: A Need for Uniformity and a Workable Standard, 16 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 211, 217-28 (2012)
168. See On Amir & Orly Lobel, Driving Performance: A Growth Theory of Noncompete Law, 16 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 833, 837-38 (2013)
169. Cf. Camilla A. Hrdy, State Patents as a Solution to Underinvestment in Innovation, 62 U. Kan. L. Rev. 487, 498-99 (2013)
170. For one recent effort to assess the inevitable disclosure doctrine's impact, see generally I.P.L. Png & Sampsa Samila, Trade Secrets Law and Engineer/Scientist Mobility: Evidence from "Inevitable Disclosure" (May 2013), available at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/programs/searlecenter/events/entrepreneur/documents/Png-Samila-Inevitable-Disclosure.pdf.
171. See A. Leo Levin, Local Rules as Experiments: A Study in the Division of Power, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1567, 1574, 1586 (1991)
172. See Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin, 574 F.3d 1403, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Mwani v. Bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 11-14 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
173. See Burt Neuborne, Parity Revisited: The Uses of a Judicial Forum of Excellence, 44 DePaul L. Rev. 797, 797 (1995).
174. Burt Neuborne, The Myth of Parity, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1120 (1977).
175. Charles Tait Graves, Trade Secrecy and Common Law Confidentiality: The Problem of Multiple Regimes, in The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research 77, 102
176. William Lynch Schaller, Secrets of the Trade: Tactical and Legal Considerations from the Trade Secret Plaintiff's Perspective, 29 Rev. Litig. 729, 775 (2010)
177. see Mac-Dermid, Inc. v. Deiter, 702 F.3d 725, 727 (2d Cir. 2012);
178. ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Biamp Systems, 653 F.3d 1163, 1169-70 (10th Cir. 2011);
179. Reg Seneca, LLC v. Harden, 938 F. Supp. 2d 852, 857-58 (S.D. Iowa 2013);
180. Success Systems, Inc. v. Lynn, No. 3:06-cv-1117 (RNC), 2013 WL 810540, at ∗1 (D. Conn. Mar. 5, 2013);
181. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Wesley Fin. Grp., LLC, No. 3:12-cv-559, 2013 WL 785938, at ∗1 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2013);
182. Avery Dennison Corp. v. Juhasz, 924 F. Supp. 2d 893, 897 (N.D. Ohio 2013);
183. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., 911 F. Supp. 2d 340, 356 (E.D. Va. 2012).
184. K-V Pharmaceutical. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 591 (8th Cir. 2011);
185. CYBERsitter, L.L.C. v. People's Republic of China, 805 F. Supp. 2d 958, 962-63 (C.D. Cal. 2011);
186. Contour Design, Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Co., No. 09-cv-451-JL, 2010 WL 174315, at ∗1 (D.N.H. Jan. 14, 2010);
187. Sterling International, Inc. v. Virtools Canada, Inc., No. CV-06-0059-AAM, 2006 WL 2035515, at ∗1 (E.D. Wash. July 18, 2006).
188. United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)
189. See, e.g., Rohm & Haas Co. v. Adco Chem. Co., 689 F.2d 424, 429 n.4 (3d Cir. 1982);
190. ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp. v. Altech, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 1310, 1328-29 (N.D. Ill. 1990).
191. See, e.g., Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley Works, 79 F.3d 1112, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
192. Rhone-Poulenc Specialites Chimiques v. SCM Corp., 769 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1985);
193. see also J. Jonas Anderson, Secret Inventions, 26 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 917, 944 (2011)
194. Karl F. Jorda, Patent and Trade Secret Complementariness: An Un-suspected Synergy, 48 Washburn L.J. 1, 28-31 (2008)
195. See, e.g., S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1082 (9th Cir. 1989);
196. Kupferberg, Goldberg & Niemark, L.L.C. v. Father & Son Pizza, Ltd., No. 95 C 3690, 1997 WL 158332, at ∗1-2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 1997).
197. See, e.g., Forest Labs., Inc. v. Pillsbury Co., 452 F.2d 621, 623, 629 (7th Cir. 1971).
198. See, e.g., Creative Computing v. Getloaded.com, L.L.C., 386 F.3d 930, 932-33 (9th Cir. 2004);
199. Unified Brands, Inc. v. Teders, 868 F. Supp. 2d 572, 576 n.1 (S.D. Miss. 2012).
200. see also Scott R. Haiber, Removing the Bias Against Removal, 53 Cath. U. L. Rev. 609, 611 (2004)
201. See Neal Miller, An Empirical Study of Forum Choices in Removal Cases Under Di-versity and Federal Question Jurisdiction, 41 Am. U. L. Rev. 369, 409 (1992)
202. See John H. Beisner, Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litiga-tion Reform, 60 Duke L.J. 547, 549 (2010)
203. Am. Intellectual Prop. Law Ass'n, Report of the Economic Survey 2013, at 36, I-183, I-185 (2013).
204. See Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics 2014, at tbl.C-5 (2014), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2014/tables/C05Mar14.pdf
205. See Elizabeth A. Rowe, Introducing a Takedown for Trade Secrets on the Internet, 2007 Wis. L. Rev. 1041, 1043
206. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, 33 I.L.M 1197 [hereinafter TRIPS].
207. Office of Policy & External Affairs: Patent Trade Secrets, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, http://www.uspto.gov/ip/global/patents/ir-pat-tradesecret.jsp (last visited Dec. 1, 2014).
208. Compare Jeanne C. Fromer, Patent Disclosure, 94 Iowa L. Rev. 539, 541-43 (2009)
209. Jason Rantanen, Peripheral Disclosure, 74 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1, 1 (2012)
210. Sean B. Seymore, The Teaching Function of Patents, 85 Notre Dame L. Rev. 621, 627 (2010)
211. Timothy R. Holbrook, Possession in Patent Law, 59 SMU L. Rev. 123, 125-26 (2006)
212. Mark A. Lemley, Ignoring Patents, 2008 Mich. St. L. Rev. 19, 21-22
213. See Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 487-88 (1974)
214. Andrew A. Schwartz, The Corporate Preference for Trade Secret, 74 Ohio St. L.J. 623, 636 (2013)
215. See BondPro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc., 463 F.3d 702, 706-07 (7th Cir. 2006)
216. see also Brian J. Love & Christopher B. Seaman, Best Mode Trade Secrets, 15 Yale J.L. & Tech. 1, 3 (2012)
217. see also Eric E. Johnson, Trade Secret Subject Mat-ter, 33 Hamline L. Rev. 545, 546 (2010)
218. See Kewanee Oil Co., 416 U.S. at 490-91
219. see also Richard A. Epstein, The Constitu-tional Protection of Trade Secrets Under the Takings Clause, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 57, 57-58 (2004)
220. See Oren Bar-Gill & Gideon Parchomovsky, Law and the Boundaries of Technology-Intensive Firms, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1649, 1676 (2009)
221. Nova Chems., Inc. v. Sekisui Plastics Co., 579 F.3d 319, 327 (3d Cir. 2009);
222. Roger D. Blair & Thomas F. Cotter, An Economic Analysis of Damages Rules in Intel-lectual Property Law, 39 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1585, 1593 (1998).
223. Kewanee Oil Co., 416 U.S. at 490
224. U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2012). However, this duration can be terminated earlier by the patent owner's failure to pay maintenance fees at four-, eight-, and twelve-year intervals af-ter the patent's issuance. Id. § 41(b)(1)-(2). Only about half of patentees pay all three maintenance fees. Dennis Crouch, USPTO Maintenance Fees, PatentlyO.com (Feb. 12, 2012), http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/02/uspto-maintenance-fees.html.
225. Samson Vermont, Independent In-vention as a Defense to Patent Infringement, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 475, 475 (2006)
226. AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
227. see also Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002)
228. Alan Devlin, The Misunderstood Function of Disclosure in Patent Law, 23 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 401, 410 (2010)
229. Ted Sichelman & Stuart J.H. Graham, Patenting by Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Study, 17 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 111, 115, 166-67 & fig.5 (2010)
230. Data Visualization Center: Patents Dashboard, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml (stating that as of January 2015, the average total penden-cy of patent applications is 26.8 months).
231. See John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigat-ed Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185, 194, 205 & fig.1 (1998)
232. . Robert Smyth, White Paper Report: United States Patent Invalidity Study 2012 (Sept. 2012), https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/Smyth-USPatentInvalidity-Sept12.pdf (finding that 86% of asserted patents were held invalid in federal district court cases from 2007-11).
233. Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 35 U.S.C.).
234. Dmitry Karshtedt, Did Learned Hand Get It Wrong?: The Questionable Patent Forfeiture Rule of Metallizing Engineering, 57 Vill. L. Rev. 261, 333-34 (2012)
235. See Zoe Argento, Killing the Golden Goose: The Dangers of Strengthening Domestic Trade Secret Rights in Response to Cyber-Misappropriation, 16 Yale J.L. & Tech. 172, 206 (2014)
236. Mark A. Lemley & Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in Intellectual Property Cases, 48 Duke L.J. 147, 229 (1998).
237. See, e.g., FMC Corp. v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Indus. Co., 730 F.2d 61, 63 (2d Cir. 1984)
238. Veri-zon Commc'ns Inc. v. Pizzirani, 462 F. Supp. 2d 648, 658 (E.D. Pa. 2006)
239. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1011 (1984).
240. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 441 (2007).
241. see also Timothy R. Holbrook, Extraterritoriality in U.S. Patent Law, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2119, 2130-36 (2008)
242. TianRui Grp. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 661 F.3d 1322, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Moore, J., dissenting).
243. See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 254-57, app. at 267-69 (2003)
244. Mark P. McKenna, The Normative Foundations of Trademark Law, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1839, 1859 n.82 (2007).
245. Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, 16 Stat. 198, invalidated by The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879).
246. The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. at 99.
247. Act of Feb. 20, 1905, ch. 592, 33 Stat. 724, 724, 726;
248. see also Mary LaFrance, Under-standing Trademark Law § 1.04 (2d ed. 2009)
249. see also H. Peter Nesvold & Lisa M. Pollard, Essay, Half a Century of Federal Trademark Protection: The Lanham Act Turns Fifty, 7 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 49, 50 n.4 (1996)
250. See JCW Invs., Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910, 919 (7th Cir. 2007)
251. see also John T. Cross, The Role of the States in United States Trademark Law, 49 U. Louisville L. Rev. 485, 486 (2011)
252. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-374, at 3-4 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1029, 1030-31.
253. Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-98, 109 Stat. 985 (1996)
254. H.R. Rep. No. 104-374, at 3, reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1029, 1030.
255. Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-312, 120 Stat. 1730 (codi-fied at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1125, 1127).
256. The result would be to hoard rather than disseminate knowledge." Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 486 (1974).
257. But see Robert G. Bone, The (Still) Shaky Foundations of Trade Secret Law, 92 Tex. L. Rev. 1803, 1817-19 (2014)
258. See Kewanee Oil Co., 416 U.S. at 486-87
259. Cf. Kewanee Oil Co., 416 U.S. at 494
260. see also C. Douglas Floyd, The Lim-its of Minimal Diversity, 55 Hastings L.J. 613, 616-31 (2004)
261. See, e.g., BP Chems., Ltd. v. Formosa Chem. & Fibre Corp., 229 F.3d 254, 259-62 (3d Cir. 2000)
262. B.E.E. Int'l, Ltd. v. Hawes, 267 F. Supp. 2d 477, 486 (M.D.N.C. 2003)
263. See, e.g., World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980)
264. cit-ing Kulko v. Cal. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 91 (1978).
265. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011).
266. J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780, 2787-88 (2011).
267. quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958).
268. See J. McIntyre Mach., 131 S. Ct. at 2789
269. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985);
270. Int'l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 320.
271. A. Benjamin Spencer, Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction for Our Federal Courts, 87 Denv. U. L. Rev. 325, 325 (2010).
272. See, e.g., Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com. de Equip. Medico, 563 F.3d 1285, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
273. See Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Guaranteed Jurisdiction: The Emerging Role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) in the Acquisition of Personal Jurisdiction of Foreign Nationals in Internet Intel-lectual Property Disputes, 5 Minn. Intell. Prop. Rev. 63, 80 (2003).
274. See Microsoft Safety & Security Center, What Is a Botnet?, http://www.microsoft.com/security/resources/botnet-whatis.aspx (last visited Dec. 1, 2014)
275. See Clay Wilson, Cong. Research Serv., RL32114, Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterror-ism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress 5 (2008), available at https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32114.pdf
276. see also Jay P. Kesan & Carol M. Hayes, Mitigative Counterstriking: Self-Defense and Deterrence in Cyberspace, 25 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 429, 442 (2012)
277. For an example of a similar theft, see Matthew Dolan, Ex-Ford Engineer Pleads Guilty in Trade-Secrets Case, Wall St. J., Nov. 17, 2010, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704648604575621111922168030.