Blog: Legal Developments

When a company discovers that a foreign entity is infringing its intellectual property, the initial decision is where to bring an enforcement action. Federal district courts are by far the most common venue for cases. Yet for certain rights holders, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is a unique and powerful alternative. Choosing between these forums—or using both—requires a clear understanding of how the ITC works, how it differs from district court litigation, and what types of relief each can provide.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury recently announced a significant shift to substantially reduce the scope of its enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (31 U.S.C. § 5336) (“CTA”). This enforcement change comes amid growing attention to how the law affects businesses’ compliance obligations.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed federal criminal fraud statutes over the last several years, reining in what defendant’s conduct and prosecution’s theories that can support convictions. On May 22, the Court parted with this recent history in Kousisis v. United States, resolving a circuit split in favor of the broader interpretation of a criminal fraud statute. The Court unanimously affirmed convictions under the federal wire fraud statute that were based on a fraudulent inducement theory where the defendants did not cause net pecuniary harm to the victim. This was a major win for DOJ at the Court.

Just over one year ago, the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule banning nearly all noncompete agreements (the “Rule”).  The status of the Rule remains in flux amid legal challenges and changes brought to the FTC with the Trump Administration. Given the continued uncertainty, it is worth taking a moment to assess the status of the Rule today and consider where things may be headed next.