Ex Parte Seizures and the Defend Trade Secrets Act

Congress is considering the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which would create a new federal trade secret civil cause of action. The Act includes a quirky and unprecedented ex parte procedure for trade secret owners to obtain a seizure order. The seizure provision applies in, at best, a narrow set of circumstances, and it oddly attempts to protect intangible trade secrets by seizing chattels. Despite procedural safeguards, the seizure provision also enables anti-competitive misuse. More generally, the fact-based disputes that inevitably must be resolved in trade secret litigation make trade secrets an especially poor basis for ex parte actions. As a result, we should be nervous about the proposed seizure provision in the Defend Trade Secret Act—and all other ex parte seizure procedures in trade secret cases

The Search and Seizure of Private Papers: Fourth and Fifth Amendment Considerations

There is a recognizable factual distinction between the search and seizure of private papers and the search and seizure of non-documentary items. It is difficult, however, to decide when such a distinction should assume constitutional dimensions. Specifically, are there circumstances under which private papers should be immune from search and seizure? In a 1967 landmark case, Warden v. Hayden, the United States Supreme Court raised doubts concerning the continued validity of decades of settled law on this important issue. Warden\u27s reopening of this problem aroused the curiosity of commentators, spurred new policy arguments in the American Law Institute, divided the lower federal courts, and raised fundamental questions concerning the central meaning of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. This Comment will explore the background leading to the present state of legal confusion, assess recent trends in decisional law, discuss the relevant policy arguments, and suggest a new approach regarding the search and seizure of private papers

The Search and Seizure of Private Papers: Fourth and Fifth Amendment Considerations

There is a recognizable factual distinction between the search and seizure of private papers and the search and seizure of non-documentary items. It is difficult, however, to decide when such a distinction should assume constitutional dimensions. Specifically, are there circumstances under which private papers should be immune from search and seizure? In a 1967 landmark case, Warden v. Hayden, the United States Supreme Court raised doubts concerning the continued validity of decades of settled law on this important issue. Warden\u27s reopening of this problem aroused the curiosity of commentators, spurred new policy arguments in the American Law Institute, divided the lower federal courts, and raised fundamental questions concerning the central meaning of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. This Comment will explore the background leading to the present state of legal confusion, assess recent trends in decisional law, discuss the relevant policy arguments, and suggest a new approach regarding the search and seizure of private papers

Comparison of Effectiveness of Topiramate and Diazepam in Preventing Risk of Recurrent Febrile Seizure in Children underAge of 2 Years

  Background and Objective: Febrile seizures are the most common type of convulsions. Medicinal prophylaxis is sometimes used for children at high risk of recurrent febrile seizure. In certain circumstances, conventional drugs such as diazepam and phenobarbital cannot be used and the need for alternative medicines is felt. This study set out to compare the effectiveness of topiramate and diazepam in preventing the risk of recurrent febrile seizure in children under the age of 2 years.Methodology: This was a randomized controlled trial. The research sampleincluded 54 patients, at risk of recurrent febrile seizure,who were inhibited from taking phenobarbital. After selection, they were randomly divided into two groups. The first group received diazepam treatment during fever episodes and the second group received daily dose of topiramate.  A one-year follow-up of recurrent febrile seizure and its complications was also conducted.Findings: Thirty four patients (17 patients in each group) completed the one-year course of the trial. Recurrent febrile seizure was not observed in the course of preventive treatment. The prevalence of minor complications was 29.4% in the diazepam group and 48.5% in the topiramate group.No major complication was observed in among the subjectsConclusion: Topiramate can be recommended for preventing recurrent febrile seizure when the use of front line medicines is not possible

Throw a Dog a Suspect: When Using Police Dogs Becomes an Unreasonable Use of Force Under the Fourth Amendment

This Note contends that a dog bite lasting up to a minute is excessive force under these circumstances and violated Miller\u27s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures. Part I of this Note provides a general synthesis of current Fourth Amendment seizure law as it applies to using police dogs. Part II discusses the facts of Miller and the court\u27s application of current case law to those facts. Finally, Part III argues that the court failed to properly apply existing Fourth Amendment seizure law to the facts in Miller, and therefore, the force used was unreasonable

Annual Survey of Virginia Law: Criminal Law and Procedure

A police officer\u27s detention of a citizen is a seizure of the person for purposes of the fourth amendment, and must be reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. Significant police encounters fall into two categories-the brief investigatory detention and the more intrusive, full-blown arrest

Defend Trade Secrets Act and The Seizure Provision: Useful or Superfluous?

Over three years have passed since the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) was passed by Congress. One of the remarkable and ground-breaking provisions of the act was the ex parte seizure provision. With its inherent expediency and the element of surprise, the ex parte seizure provision found instant appeal among the trade secret owner community. But the opponents saw a provision ripe for abuse and anti-competitive behaviour. In the three years since its enactment, the ex parte seizure provision has been used sparingly. Plaintiffs have found other provisions equally effective or at least “good enough.” Even when plaintiffs sought ex parte seizure, the courts often found other available remedies—such as Rule 65 temporary restraining orders (TRO)— sufficient for the desired protection. This article provides a background and overview of the DTSA and its jurisprudence. The philosophical and policy underpinnings behind the inclusion of the ex-parte seizure provision are described to provide the appropriate context. The article then takes a retrospective look at the concerns raised by (primarily) the academic community highlighting the potential for abuse, and assesses if such concerns played out in reality. Further, the effectiveness of the seizure provision, especially in light of alternative provisions available, is also investigated. Finally, recommendations are made for potential reforms to improve the predictability and probability of success of ex parte seizure requests in future applications. Specifically, a multi-factor test focusing on the defendant’s characteristics is proposed to determine the circumstances where a Rule 65 remedy could be used with the same effect as the seizure provision. A second multi-factor test is then proposed as a framework to analyse the likelihood and propriety of ex parte seizure grants