Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

... @lauradolbow.bsky.social @jcontreras.bsky.social sky.social & many more not on Bsky (or whose @s I don't know!)
17/17

sky.social

1 4

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

Thanks also to signatories @asarpatwari.bsky.social @jsross119.bsky.social @reshmagar.bsky.social @gregggonsalves.bsky.social @medlawdan.bsky.social @victorroy.bsky.social @cjsprigman.bsky.social @drjoshs.bsky.social ...
16/

1 1 3

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

And deep thanks to the many professors in our coalition!
First & foremost @akapczynski.bsky.social, who was part of our strategy & drafting team from the start.
15/

1 1 5

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

I'll keep watching the appeal, and this interesting intersection of "IP" & admin law. I hope our brief makes an impact!
Kudos to the student attorneys at @nyulaw.bsky.social & Yale Law who researched & wrote much of the brief—Claire Huang, Humphrey Shen, Ben Anderson & Liam Bendicksen.
14

1 1 4

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

For more on how aggressive assertions of trade secrecy can hamper federal regulation, and why regulatory disclosure of private trade secrets is often perfectly legal, see Publicizing Corporate Secrets!
13/
scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_rev...

Publicizing Corporate Secrets

By Christopher J. Morten, Published on 01/01/23

scholarship.law.upenn.edu

1 1 4

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

For example, we touch briefly on NHTSA's recently established program of disclosure of data from crashes of autonomous vehicles, which could be halted in the face of claims by Tesla and other companies that NHTSA's disclosure program may violate companies' trade secrets.
12/

1 2 2

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

We pointed out that FDA & other regulators tend, in fact, to be cautious about disclosure of private trade secrets, and we argued that accepting Vanda's view of the law could harm regulation and the American public by unduly restricting regulatory agencies' communications.
11/

1 2 3

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

Our brief also presented some policy arguments on the harms that could flow from prohibiting the FDA and other federal regulators from using and disseminating any and all information that might plausibly meet the definition of a state law trade secret.
10/

1 1 5

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

In our reading of Monsanto and its progeny, federal agencies can, in some situations, disclose information that qualifies as a state law trade secret without working a taking.
(IMO, companies rarely actually sue agencies for taking trade secrets because they'd usually lose!)
9/

1 1 3

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

Our amicus brief argued to the contrary that the Supreme Court, in 1984's Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto decision, blessed federal administrative agencies’ sharing of trade secret information under some circumstances.
8/
scholar.google.com/scholar_case...

scholar.google.com

1 1 2

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

Our amicus brief argued that Vanda’s interpretation of the law is misleading. Vanda's lawyers have suggested there is a per se rule that any federal agency's disclosure of a private trade secret necessarily works a taking.
7/

1 1 3

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

Our brief is linked here:
6/
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

1 1 4

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

My clinic—NYU's Science, Health & Information Clinic—worked closely with @akapczynski.bsky.social and, ultimately, a coalition of more than 30 professors of law, medicine, and public health to develop an amicus brief explaining the stakes of the case.
5/
www.law.nyu.edu/academics/cl...

Science, Health & Information Clinic

www.law.nyu.edu

1 2 6

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

But companies usually just THREATEN takings claims when their secrets get disclosed. When push comes to shove, they rarely sue.
That's what makes the Vanda appeal so interesting—Vanda has taken FDA to court. The Federal Circuit has an opportunity to set important precedent.
4/

1 2 5

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

As I wrote about in a 2023 article—"Publicizing Corporate Secrets"—companies often complain about regulators' disclosure of their information and allege takings of their trade secrets. Some regulators' work is hampered by the threat of takings claims.
3/
scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_rev...

Publicizing Corporate Secrets

By Christopher J. Morten, Published on 01/01/23

scholarship.law.upenn.edu

1 1 4

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

In Vanda v. United States, No. 25-1434 (Fed. Cir.), Vanda—a drug manufacturer—alleges that the FDA effected a 5th Amendment taking of its trade secrets by disclosing certain information to Vanda's competitors without Vanda's knowledge or consent.
2/
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71169...

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. United States, 25-1434 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. United States, 25-1434 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

1 2 3

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 9h

🚨 New from the Science, Health & Information Clinic at @nyulaw.bsky.social! 🚨
An amicus brief in Vanda v. United States, on federal agencies' legal authority to use & disclose private trade secrets.
A case you probably haven't heard of, but with major consequences for federal regulation!
🧵
1/

1 6 10

Reposted by Chris Morten

Elizabeth Picciuto @epicciuto.bsky.social · 1d

“It may look confusing to outsiders, but what we’re trying to do is avoid making precedents that a Democratic government could also use.”

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 1d

Amy Coney Barrett defends heavy use of the shadow docket: "If we wrote a long opinion, it might give the impression that we have finally resolved the issue, and in none of these cases have we finally resolved the issue."

16 120 280

Reposted by Chris Morten

Zohran Kwame Mamdani @zohrankmamdani.bsky.social · 2d

UNTIL IT’S DONE, Ep. 4: Sylvia Rivera

In the 1970s, queer New Yorkers had been pushed to the margins of NYC. Our trans neighbors faced immense cruelty. But in Sylvia Rivera, they found a champion.

As we combat Trump’s politics of darkness, her legacy can light the path forward.

400 6K 21K

Reposted by Chris Morten

Max Kennerly @maxkennerly.bsky.social · 2d

"Depends on the Narrator."

The "narrator" is supposed to be you, @nytimes.com, narrating the factual truth here, instead of regurgitating a deliberate falsehood as if it was a different legitimate perspective on the truth.

David Corn @davidcorn.bsky.social · 2d

A classic case of irresponsible both-sidesism from the NYT. The story is that Trump and MAGA propagandists are lying about Portland to incite a conflict, not that there are different views of the matter.

12 81 410

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 3d

Full schedule and RSVP link here:
www.eventbrite.com/e/conspicuou...
Join us!

Conspicuous Consumers: An Engelberg Center Symposium

Over exposed and under explored, consumers play critical roles across a range of legal doctrines. We're giving them their due.

www.eventbrite.com

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 3d

I expect our discussion to reach some important features of American health law & policy that have been driven by patient-scientists (e.g., FDA approval processes), as well as important medical technologies invented and advocated by patients & their advocates (e.g., the "artificial pancreas").

1

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 3d

Our panel will start at 2:30 pm on Thursday, Oct. 16 and will include Fran Visco (National Breast Cancer Coalition), Hilary Koch (diabetes patient advocate), Steve Woloshin (Dartmouth Medicine) & Charles Duan (American U Washington College of Law).

1

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 3d

Patients and their loved ones become experts and agents of change; they advocate for new laws, new policies, and new research, and sometimes conduct research themselves to invent new technologies.

1

Chris Morten @cmorten.bsky.social · 3d

"The Consumer Scientist" discussion will bring together patient advocates and professors to discuss some of the ways that consumers of medical technologies—that is, patients—can do much more than merely consume!

1