Latest firm news

The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 Signed Into Law

President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) into law, creating a federal system of trade secrets law. The DTSA extends the current Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (“EEA”) which criminalizes trade secret theft, and creates a new Federal cause of action allowing companies to sue to defend their trade secrets. This means that for the first time, trade secret owners can now bring civil suits in federal district courts. The bill was largely uncontroversial passing the Senate 87-0 and the House of Representatives 410-2.

Under the DTSA, for example, a federal court could have jurisdiction over a claim of misappropriation of a trade secret that is used exclusively on an internal basis by the victim or one that is related to a product or service that is in the development stage, so long as the trade secret is related to a product that is intended for use in interstate commerce.

The DTSA adopts the EEA’s broad definition of a trade secret meaning almost any kind of tangible or intangible type of information can qualify as a trade secret so long as: (1) the information is actually kept secret; (2) the owner took reasonable measures to maintain that secrecy; and (3) independent economic value is derived from that secrecy.

The theft of trade secrets costs the economy more than $300 billion a year, according to the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property. The DTSA represents the most significant expansion of Federal intellectual property law in a generation, fully recognizing a fourth type of intellectual property right, and is a major step forward in the protection of intellectual property in the United States. 

Oliver A. Ruiz participates in Federal Bar Association’s Capitol Hill Day

Firm Partner Oliver A. Ruiz recently participated in the Federal Bar Association’s Capitol Hill Day, in his role as President of the FBA’s South Florida Chapter, which is currently the 5th largest chapter in the country. Throughout the day, Mr. Ruiz met with Members of Congress to advocate for our federal courts and to discuss issues that are important to federal practice. 

John Malloy co-moderates INTA table topic

Firm Partner, John Cyril Malloy III, co-moderated an advanced “Table Topic Presentation” this morning at the annual meeting of the International Trademark Association on the subject of “Trade Dress vs. Design Patents: Friend or Foe?”  In attendance were many colleagues in the intellectual property field from around the country and as far away as Japan.

Firm attorney Meredith Mendez is serving as a Co-Chair of The Women’s Fund of Miami-Dade RAISE THE BAR Event

Firm attorney Meredith Mendez is serving as a Co-Chair of The Women’s Fund of Miami-Dade RAISE THE BAR Event.  Malloy & Malloy is also a sponsor of the Event.  Every year, the event gets larger and more successful.  In the past few years, there was over 400 attendees at the event. Since 2005, RAISE THE BAR has raised close to $300,000 to fund the Woman’s Fund grant making program in support of community organizations that work with survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking including services such as legal assistance, shelter, counseling and education.

The event features an open bar, hors d’oeuvres and a silent auction.  It will be held on Thursday, June 2, 2016 at the Chapman Conference Center at Miami Dade College.  Tickets can be purchased at

US PTO Issues 2016 Guidance on Patent Eligibility

Yesterday, the USPTO issued the most recent guidelines of patent subject matter eligibility pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101, i.e. the detemrination of when an invention will be found ineligible for an “abstract idea”, “law of nature”, or “natural phenomenon”.  This update follows the two preceding updates each from July 2015, and late 2014 (after the Alice decision).  Specifically, the new memorandum issued by the Deputy Commissioner now requires that an examiner: (1) identify the judicial exception by referring what is recited in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception; (2) identify any additional elements (specifically point to claim features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception; and (3) explain the reason(s) that the additional elements taken individually, and as a combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.  Overall, this appears to be an increased burden on the examiner in formulating an initial 101 rejection.  Additional examples and recent court decisions have also been provided.  For more, visit

Supreme Court Takes Up Question of Laches in Patent Case

In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the “Raging Bull” case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the defense of laches, whereby the accused infringer alleges that the right holder sat on its rights for too long before bringing suit, cannot be used to shorten the three-year statute of limitations set forth in the Copyright Act. In the case of SCA Hygeiene Products, AK v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, the Supreme Court has recently taken up the question as it pertains to the defense of laches and the six-year statute of limitations set forth in the Patent Laws. Follow the case here for updates.