Jasmine story misses the point
Tuesday’s article entitled “Jasmine v. Marvell: The Case That Will Not Die” mischaracterized Justice Rushing’s decision when the article said that Justice Rushing had paid a backhanded compliment to Latham attorney Stephen Bauer for coming up with a clever, if unsupportable, continuous ownership theory of trade secret law in order to obtain a dismissal of Jasmine’s case against Marvell last June. The same article was also wrong in interpreting the decision as a slap at Judge Tom Edwards.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
