Our San Francisco office is one of the most dynamic and growing in the Bay Area, and our lawyers represent clients based in Northern California, particularly in the tech space.Vinson & Elkins' New York office provides high-quality legal services to an array of blue-chip clients, including leading private equity firms, investment banks, and other financial institutions, as well as public and privately held companies in such areas as energy, infrastructure, media and entertainment, and pharmaceuticals.Located in one of America’s most historic cities, Vinson & Elkins’ Richmond office is home to a team of lawyers who focus on strategic transactions involving real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other specialty finance companies.
Vinson & Elkins' Beijing office has been open since 1997, and was one of the first international law firms resident in PRC. S., English, Australian, Singaporean and PRC lawyers, who provide tailored services for Chinese companies investing abroad, as well as international clients on their business in China.
Vinson & Elkins has advised clients on their investments and business dealings in the Russia/CIS region since the early 1970s.
We established our Moscow office in 1991, and were one of the first international law firms to do so.
Using Moscow as a base for our wide Russia CIS practice, we have represented numerous Russian, U.
S., European, and Asian companies on a multitude of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, and other projects throughout the region. Our London lawyers handle disputes (including international arbitration and High Court litigation), energy transactions and projects, finance, mergers and acquisitions, private equity, and tax.
Vinson & Elkins’ London office opened in 1971, making our office one of the oldest London offices of any U. Vinson & Elkins has represented clients in Saudi Arabia for more than 20 years; since 2011 we have worked in association with the Law Office of Looaye M.
Free for (limited) use under a Creative Commons license. [for] the transportation and delivery of goods." (Wikipedia.com). Another useful patent-law analogy might the requirement of corroboration to support an assertion that an issued patent is invalid due to prior public use. In the Seventh Circuit's Fail-Safe case, the court pointedly noted that the plaintiff had not marked its information as confidential; the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim of misappropriation. A disclosing party should always insist on imposing confidentiality obligations on a receiving party; otherwise, a court is likely to hold hold that the disclosing party had failed to make reasonable efforts to protect its confidential information. For the avoidance of doubt, the Receiving Party's undertaking of the obligations of the Agreement concerning Confidential Information is not intended and should not be interpreted as in itself establishing a confidential‑ or fiduciary relationship between the parties.
You're free to use the Common Draft materials (which are copyrighted) in accordance with the following license; all of the following permissions are given on the express condition that you agree to the Cautions below. This list of exclusions requires only reasonable corroboration of a claim of exclusion from confidentiality, as opposed to some provisions of this kind that require documentary proof of the claim. According to the court, that requirement helps to guard against the possibility that someone might "describe [their] actions in an unjustifiably self-serving manner …. (a) Information that is made available to the Receiving Party in connection with the Agreement, by or on behalf of the Disclosing Party, will not be considered Confidential Information unless the information is marked as provided in the Agreement. Compaq won because Convolve, which claimed trade-secret rights in certain information, had disclosed some of that information orally to Compaq, but didn't follow up those oral disclosures with written summaries, which was required by the parties' non-disclosure agreement. At all times during the Confidentiality-Obligation Period, the Receiving Party must cause the following precautions to be taken to safeguard Confidential Information in its possession, custody, or control: (1) at least the same precautions as the Receiving Party takes for its own information of comparable significance; (2) in no case less than those precautions that a prudent person would take in the same circumstances; and (3) any other particular secrecy precautions stated in the Agreement. 1960) (per curiam, adopting district court opinion).
They want to allocate responsibily for arranging for shipping the widgets; insurance; export clearances; and customs. to ensure that any use, disclosure, or copying of Confidential Information, by or on behalf of the Receiving Party or any party receiving Confidential Information from the Receiving Party complies with applicable law, including for example any applicable law concerning (i) privacy or (ii) export controls. (Opinions seem to vary as to whether the term fiduciary relationship and confidential relationship are synonyms; the answer might depend on the jurisdiction. Day, Difference Between Fiduciary Relationships and Confidential Relationships (John Day Legal.com) (citing Tennessee cases).
The manufacturer and customer needn't bother negotiating the wording for those responsibilities. A requirement like this can be handy if the Receiving Party will be dealing with information whose distribution is restricted by law, for example personal health information or export-controlled information. The obligations of section 6.1.3 apply only during the Confidentiality-Obligation Period; during that time, though, those obligations will continue to apply to all Specimens of Confidential Information, even after any termination or expiration of the Agreement. of Confidential Information is any copy of, and any physical object embodying, Confidential Information — for example, any paper- or electronic copy and any specimen of hardware — where the copy or physical object is in the possession, custody, or control of: (i) the Receiving Party, and/or (ii) any individual or organization to which the Receiving Party made Confidential Information accessible.
2016-03.4; last modified Wednesday September 14, 2016 Houston time. Both a contract drafter and a contract reviewer can save some time by first reviewing — together — the Common Draft short-form contract drafts (as well as other clause titles) and discussing just what types of provision they want in their document. The better approach is the one taken by this provision. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained this balancing concept in an analogous context, namely the patent-law requirement that claims of prior invention must be corroborated. 10, 2016) (affirming award of treble damages and trebled attorney fees; internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Washburn & Moen Mfg. Some language in this disclaimer is in all-caps bold-faced type so that the language will be conspicuous. A company's failure to do catch-up marking of confidential information after an oral disclosure to another party can kill the company's claim to trade-secret rights in the information. Compaq, the computer manufacturer Compaq (then part of Hewlett-Packard) defeated Convolve's claim that Compaq had misappropriated Convolve's trade secrets concerning hard-disk technology. A receiving party, though, might well object to this provision because it's necessarily vague, which could later lead to disputres about whether particular information qualified as "clearly" confidential.