Waterproof Winter Boots

Fabulous styles of waterproof kid’s winter boots are all available in the market nowadays. You probably overwhelm with a lot of selections in the market, nevertheless the best thing to do is to think carefully the quality and the usage of the footwear. If your children are very active even during rainy seasons then you must purchase a waterproof winter boots. This allows your children to freely enjoy the rain and that you will have the assurance that their feet are protected and safe. Nevertheless make sure to keep an eye to your children once they are playing outside as accident was inevitable. If you have no idea to what are the good brands of footwear these days, then below is the list that you might consider;

Different brand and styles have different price range, like the Colimbia Bugazip boots that you can buy for only $69.95. These great boots feature a 400g Thinsulate Ultra insulation. The nubuck and smooth leather uppers are matched by an injection molded thermal rubber shell; this 4 ‘ gusseted zipper is waterproof is definitely a good choice not only for your children but also to your feet.

Salomon B52 Gore-Tex winter boots are a great choice for only $89.95. This boots was designed as a waterproof breathable Gore-Tex material that will certainly protect you during rainy days. The attached foam sockliner avoids and prevents the cold air from seeping up through the sole. This helps your feet keep away from those harmful bacteria that might start sickness. The Thinsulate insulation and polyurethane coated insoles gives this footwear the durability, stability and the warmth that your feet need. To makes you more fashionable this boots looks great with leggings, skinny jeans and pants.

If you are looking for a modern design and style waterproof winter boot then Patagonia Koyuk boots is the perfect choice for only $190.00. With a toasty fleece lining and fluffy synthetic insulation this boots gives you the ultimate comfort and style at the same time.

Another good purchase is the Hi-Tec St. Moritz boots for only $114.99. The boots designed for excellent ease and the warmth that you feet need during rainy days. This is the perfect footwear that gives you the comfort and relief even with the all day use. Buy a pair for your children also as this will gives them the comfort during the whole day of running and playing around. These fabulous styles in waterproof winter boots are definitely a must have for you and your child.

Waterproof Winter Boots will definitely allow you and your child to have enjoyable winter season. With the proper care this footwear will last until next season. This will saves you a lot of money, as you can purchase kid’s winter boots with half an inch larger to your child’s feet size. This way they can use it again during the next rainy seasons. Now is the time that you need to get a pair, get up and go in the market or much better turn on your computer and start shopping online

Www.prendamovil.com It is so pleasant to work with experts. Click here to find out more regarding maurices credit login.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Waterproof Winter Boots

Trade Secret Litigation: Why Copyright and Patent Filings Should Be on Your Radar

As part of your initial due diligence in investigating a trade secrets case-whether on the offense or defensive-it is important to confirm whether copyrights or patents have been filed on the same or similar subject matter as the trade secret in the suit. The presence of either could deal a fatal blow to a plaintiff, or a winning defense. Taking the time upfront to evaluate this issue will possibly pay off by either catching your opponent off-guard, or allowing you to appropriately help your client understand potential arguments that could jeopardize their case down the road. Defense counsel should serve discovery regarding patent and copyright applications to determine whether harmful disclosure has occurred. Plaintiff’s counsel should investigate these potential disclosures. Patent applications present a good opportunity to show public disclosure because the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C., requires the applicant to disclose the best mode of the invention as well as to enable someone skilled in the art to practice the invention. These statutory requirements are ripe for causing an applicant to disclose confidential information. Likewise, the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C., requires deposit of a specimen to obtain registration. That deposit material may inadvertently contain confidential information.

In addition to public disclosure, other defenses under Texas law include showing that the confidential information was developed independently, that access to the confidential information was with consent or through proper means, that the information is stale or no longer available for protection, and that the defendant has a license or some other authorization. Unclean hands can be a defense to certain types of equitable relief. However, public disclosure remains one of the best defenses to these cases, and poses significant risk to the plaintiff. Defendants will typically exhaust several avenues to show that the information is not protectable due to failure to safeguard it. Examples include failure to password protect the information, lack of employment and confidentiality agreements, lack of control over the confidential information, lax premises security, and the like.

Trade secret misappropriation under Texas law is established by showing of three elements: (a) a trade secret existed; (b) it was acquired through a breach of a confidential relationship or discovered by improper means; and (c) use of the trade secret without authorization from the plaintiff. Phillips v. Frey, 20 F.3d 623, 627 (5th Cir. 1994). To determine whether a trade secret exists, Texas courts weigh six factors set forth in the Restatement of Torts in the context of the surrounding circumstances:

(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the business;

(2) the extent to which it is known by employees and other involved in the business;

(3) the extent of measures taken to guard the secrecy of the information;

(4) the value of the information to the business and to its competitors;

(5) the amount of effort or money expended in developing the information; and

(6) the ease or difficult with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.

See Tewari De-Ox Systems, Inc. v. Mountain States/Rosen, L.L.C., 637 F.3d 604, 610 (5th Cir. 2011). This clearly is a fact intensive inquiry depending on the circumstances.

While the plaintiff is not necessarily required to satisfy all six factors, it is self-evident that the subject matter of a trade secret must be secret. Id. at 611. A trade secret is “one of the most elusive and difficult concepts in the law to define.” Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Ark-Ell Springs, Inc., 569 F.2d 286, 288 (5th Cir. 1978). However, information that is public knowledge or that is generally known in an industry usually does not qualify. See Luccous v. J.C. Kinley Co., 376 S.W.2d 336,338 (Tex. 1964); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1002 (1984). This raises the question of whether the filing of a patent or copyright application could act to destroy trade secret protection. For example, a prorpieatry technology process could be disclosed in a patent application to satisfy the best mode and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. Section 112. Likewise, software source code could be submitted in human-readable format as a deposit specimen at the U.S. Copyright Office to obtain a copyright registration. Each of these situations pose risks or opportunities, depending on who you represent.

Before 2000, a patent application filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was maintained in secrecy unless and until the application issued as a patent or was cross-referenced in an issued patent. In 2000, the Patent Act was amended to provide for the automatic publication of a pending patent application 18 months after filing except in certain limited circumstances in which the applicant takes affirmative steps to prevent publication. Thus, the complete disclosure of the patent application becomes a public document upon publication. This could provide fatal public disclosure of confidential information.

Does publication of a patent or copyright application destroy trade secret status?

Although no post-2000 Texas case directly addresses whether a published patent application destroys the secrecy of its contents for trade secret purposes, the weight of authority from other jurisdictions holds that it does. Tewari, 637 F.3d at 612 (citing Group One, ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2001) and OLA, LLC v. Builder Homesite, Inc., 661 F. Supp. 2d 668, 673 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (finding that the information lost its trade secret status when the application that became the patent was published).

In Tewari, the Fifth Circuit addressed the question of whether alleged trade-secret information disclosed in a published patent application could still be a trade secret after the application was published. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff’s trade-secret claim finding that the alleged trade secrets were either disclosed in the plaintiff’s published patent applications or were disclosed or known in the industry. The Tewari court noted that the published patent application was readily retrievable and available, and found that the trial court correctly concluded that any processes disclosed in the 2004 published applications were not trade secrets in 2005 when the non-disclosure agreements were signed. However, the court expressly distinguished this case from the situation where a party gains knowledge of a trade secret and breaches an obligation to keep it in confidence while it was still secret because under Texas law, a party might still be enjoined from using the trade secret even though it later entered the public domain through publication in the published patent application.

While it makes sense that the same would hold true when the contents of trade secrets are disclosed in a published copyright application, case law has not yet clearly held that to be the case. However, in at least one Texas court, even when technical information was on deposit in the U.S. Copyright Office, a public record, the court held it unlikely that anyone would go there to read it, and information that was in the plaintiff’s copyrighted bulletins was still entitled to protection. See Grace v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 255 S.W.2d 279, 290 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.). However, copyright filings should still be a concern of trade secret litigators as it could still pose a threat to trade secret status, much like the cases on patent application publication discussed above, if the particular factual situation exists.

Conclusion

So, whether you regularly handle trade secrets case or simply have a client involved in one, it is likely worth your time to investigate copyright and patent filings to determine what might be publicly disclosed in order to craft the best offense or defense for your client.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Trade Secret Litigation: Why Copyright and Patent Filings Should Be on Your Radar