This morning SCOTUS ruled that the Lanham Act provisions regarding trademark infringement do not have extraterritorial reach - the alleged infringing “use in commerce” must be domestic. As Justice Jackson’s concurrence highlights, the nature of global commerce means that even this attempted bright line standard likely won’t function as one. What is clear, is that the Lanham Act will ...

This morning SCOTUS ruled that the Lanham Act provisions regarding trademark infringement do not have extraterritorial reach - the alleged infringing “use in commerce” must be domestic. As Justice Jackson’s ...

Last month we discussed how the rapid adoption of ChatGPT and its work-related usage may create new risks for businesses regarding the confidentiality requirements to establish trade secret protection. This article highlights another way that generative AI may change the trade secret landscape:  it may redefine what constitutes novelty and how to prove it. Under Washington law, a party ...

Last month we discussed how the rapid adoption of ChatGPT and its work-related usage may create new risks for businesses regarding the confidentiality requirements to establish trade secret protection. This ...

Generative AI has made headlines in recent months after the large language model ChatGPT launched for free public use. ChatGPT set the record for the fastest growing user base, obtaining 100 million monthly active users in only two months.[1] By March, that number had grown to over 1 billion users.[2] The allure of ChatGPT is that it can quickly ...

Generative AI has made headlines in recent months after the large language model ChatGPT launched for free public use. ChatGPT set the record for the fastest growing user base, obtaining ...

I wrote previously about the absence of prohibitions against non-participant attendance at a deposition, and thus the need for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(E)—or its Washington State counterpart, Civil Rule 26(c)(5)—if a party seeks to limit persons who may be present.  See https://www.sbwllp.com/unexpected-guests-who-may-attend-a-deposition/. But if the non-participant is another witness in the case, ...

I wrote previously about the absence of prohibitions against non-participant attendance at a deposition, and thus the need for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(E)—or ...

At the end of a deposition, pursuant to Washington Civil Rule 30(e), the court reporter typically asks the deponent’s attorney whether she would like to “reserve signature,” i.e., for the deponent to await her review of the transcript before she attests to its accuracy.  Most attorneys view this as the right of deponent and, as a matter of course, ...

At the end of a deposition, pursuant to Washington Civil Rule 30(e), the court reporter typically asks the deponent’s attorney whether she would like to “reserve signature,” i.e., for the ...

Suppose you represent the defendant in a lawsuit, and he wants his long-time significant other to participate in discussions about legal strategy that would be protected by the attorney-client privilege if they were strictly between you and your client. Could the significant other join in these conversations without impairing the privilege? RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) provides that “[a]n attorney or counselor ...

Suppose you represent the defendant in a lawsuit, and he wants his long-time significant other to participate in discussions about legal strategy that would be protected by the attorney-client privilege ...

Many lawyers treat Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and its state analogues as a blanket confidentiality provision that precludes reliance upon—or even disclosure of—settlement communications.  The language of the rule itself, however, and cases applying it, make clear that Rule 408 is not so broad: not every communication with a “Rule 408 Settlement Communication” stamp is inadmissible. Federal Rule ...

Many lawyers treat Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and its state analogues as a blanket confidentiality provision that precludes reliance upon—or even disclosure of—settlement communications.  The language of the rule ...

In prior blog posts we examined Washington law on noncompete agreements: the current statutory scheme that curtails the use of noncompete agreements in certain contexts [here] and [here], and how Washington courts evaluate the reasonableness of a noncompete agreement to determine its enforceability [here]. A recently proposed rule by the Federal Trade Commission would upend this Washington law.[1] Under ...

In prior blog posts we examined Washington law on noncompete agreements: the current statutory scheme that curtails the use of noncompete agreements in certain contexts [here] and [here], and how ...