What are intellectual property rights?

The Cause of Action

The Court treats this cause of action as misappropriation of trade secrets. (Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1665-1666) “Under the UTSA, a prima facie claim for misappropriation of trade secrets requires the plaintiff to demonstrate:

  1. the plaintiff owned a trade secret,
  2. the defendant acquired, disclosed, or used the plaintiff’s trade secret through improper means, and
  3. the defendant’s actions damaged the plaintiff.

(Id. citing Civ.Code Sec, 3426.1.)

“Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means,’ but ‘[r]everse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.’ (Id. Civ.Code Sec. 3426.1(a).)”.

Intellectual Property and Property Interest

CCP 387 provides for both mandatory and discretionary intervention. Under CCP 387(b), a party in entitled to intervene as a matter of right if that party has an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and is so situated that any disposition of the action would, in its absence, impair or impede intervener's ability to protect that interest.

Intellectual Property as Patent and Ownership Determination

“[P]atent ownership is determined by state, not federal law.” (Sky Technologies LLC v. SAP AG (2009) 576 F.3d 1374, 1379 citing Akazawa, 520 F.3d at 1357 (citing Jim Arnold Corp. v. Hydrotech Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir.1997) ("[T]he question of who owns the patent rights and on what terms typically is a question exclusively for state courts."). “However, ‘the question of whether a patent assignment clause creates an automatic assignment or merely an obligation to assign is intimately bound up with the question of standing in patent cases,’ and therefore we have ‘treated it as a matter of federal law.’” (Id. citing DDB Techs., L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 517 F.3d 1284, 1290 (Fed.Cir.2008). “Usually, federal law is used to determine the validity and terms of an assignment, but state law controls any transfer of patent ownership by operation of law not deemed an assignment.” (Id.)

Useful Rulings on Intellectual Property Rights

Recent Rulings on Intellectual Property Rights

CHRISTINA GARCIA VS UPTOWN LOUNGE INC

Calls for Responding Party’s confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information. [¶] Without waiving the foregoing objections and subject thereto, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party has an interest in protecting the location of its surveillance video from public knowledge.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

EVAN ISRAEL BRENNER VS MIKA JAYMES INC ET AL

(“MJI”) and Mehrad Javahery (“Javahery”) (“Defendants”) improperly created a corporation using Mika Brenner’s name to operate a men’s clothing brand, registered the “Mika Jaymes” trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, purchased the “www.mikajaymes.com” domain name and signed up for related social media pages. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two causes of action for: (1) right of publicity under Civil Code, § 3344 and (2) common law right of publicity.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

Plaintiff still has not alleged it is the owner of the trade secret. The misappropriation of trade secret claim fails because the information alleged to constitute a "trade secret" does not meet the statutory requirements. Oxford's purported "trade secrets" are neither unique when comparable to ARM's. Further, the "trade secrets", including the rates paid by one agency or the schedules of advertising campaigns, are available to others. There is no "secret" at issue.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ELINA ANDJUNYAN VS ILYAS TAREEN, ET AL.

A protective order may direct “[t]hat the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be made only on specified terms and conditions [or] [t]hat a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed, or be disclosed only to specified persons or only in a specified way.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subds. (b)(4)-(5).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

Plaintiff still has not alleged it is the owner of the trade secret. The misappropriation of trade secret claim fails because the information alleged to constitute a "trade secret" does not meet the statutory requirements. Oxford's purported "trade secrets" are neither unique when comparable to ARM's. Further, the "trade secrets", including the rates paid by one agency or the schedules of advertising campaigns, are available to others. There is no "secret" at issue.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

Plaintiff still has not alleged it is the owner of the trade secret. The misappropriation of trade secret claim fails because the information alleged to constitute a "trade secret" does not meet the statutory requirements. Oxford's purported "trade secrets" are neither unique when comparable to ARM's. Further, the "trade secrets", including the rates paid by one agency or the schedules of advertising campaigns, are available to others. There is no "secret" at issue.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ELINA ANDJUNYAN VS ILYAS TAREEN, ET AL.

A protective order may direct “[t]hat the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be made only on specified terms and conditions [or] [t]hat a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed, or be disclosed only to specified persons or only in a specified way.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subds. (b)(4)-(5).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

GRANADOS V. CITY OF GARDEN GROVE

Unless there is a patent error to be corrected, the court does not encourage oral argument. If the parties suspect there will be further discovery disputes of this breadth, they are encouraged to meet and confer meaningfully to agree upon a discovery referee. 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

PENNINGTON VS SURFSIDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL APC

., injunctive and/or other equitable relief for intellectual property violations, unfair competition and/or the use and/or unauthorized disclosure of trade secret or confidential information). [Mercuro v. Sup.Ct. (Countrywide Secur. Corp.) (2002) 96 CA4th 167, 175-176, 116 CR2d 671, 677; see O'Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants (2003) 107 CA4th 267, 275-276, 132 CR2d 116, 123] (Chin, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Emp. Lit. (TRG 2019) ¶ 18:621.4 (emphasis in original, but formatting changed).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ZIV BAHAT, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

That said, the Court would be inclined to impose a protective order per CCP section 2025.420(b)(13) regarding any trade secret information. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motions are GRANTED. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties are to meet and confer on appropriate social distancing measures, including through electronic means, and an appropriate protective order. (See CRC, Emergency Rule 11.) Plaintiff’s sanctions requests were withdrawn. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

PARVIN ESMAILZADEH, ET AL. VS DAVID GEFFEN

A protective order may include, but is not limited to, an order that: (1) the set of requests or particular requests in the set need not be answered at all; (2) that the number of requests is unwarranted; (3) that the time specified to respond to the requests be extended; (4) that a trade secret or other confidential research not be admitted or be admitted only in a certain way; or (5) that some or all of the answers to requests be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court. (Code of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FLORES V. FORD MOTOR CO.

Trade Secret Objection Proof required show a trade secret exists must consist of admissible evidence of the following elements, per Uribe v. Howie (1971) 19 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

HIRSON V. DANA SMITH SHOW TEAM, INC.

An ambiguity can be patent, arising from the face of the writing, or latent, based on extrinsic evidence.” [Citation.] . . . . If an ambiguity as to the scope of the release exists, it should normally be construed against the drafter. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Id, at p. 1485; Italics in Cohen.) Defendants rely on paragraph 4 of the HLA which states, “Lesser will hold harmless Rancho Sierra Vista, Dana Smith Show Team, Inc., and all affiliates.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

Discovery Requirements for Misappropriation of Trade Secret Actions Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 provides: “In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Title 5 (commencing with Section 3426 ) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code), before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity subject to any orders that may be appropriate under

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

Discovery Requirements for Misappropriation of Trade Secret Actions Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 provides: “In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Title 5 (commencing with Section 3426 ) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code), before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity subject to any orders that may be appropriate under

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

HOLLINGSWORTH V. UPLAND INDOOR BOAT & RV STORAGE

This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: (1) That the set of admission requests, or particular requests in the set, need not be answered at all. (2) That, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2033.050, the number of admission requests is unwarranted. (3) That the time specified in Section 2033.250 to respond to the set of admission requests, or to particular requests in the set, be extended. (4) That a trade secret

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

TAMAR SECURITIES, LLC VS TOBIE ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ

Defendant also argues that the information sought is a “trade secret”; however, Defendant did not assert such an objection in responding to the interrogatory and in opposition does not set forth how such identifying information constitutes a trade secret. (Opposition, pg. 4; Decl. of Burton ¶2.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KATIE O CONNELL MARSH VS GAUMONT TELEVISION USA LLC

secret, and privileged information regarding confidential agreements with third parties, sales information, sales methods, business plans, strategic and long-range plans, customer lists, prospective customer names, and budgets.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

CALIFORNIA FUELING LLC VS BEST ENERGY SOLUTIONS AND TECHNOLOGY CORP., ET AL.

Here, Defendant Best provides no evidence to support its contention that all communications regarding a possible ingredient of Best’s additive would constitute a trade secret. Instead, Best simply broadly asserts that a component of the additive is itself a trade secret. Further, Best cites no law to support this contention that each component of a trade secret is itself a trade secret or that communications regarding any component of a trade secret are trade secrets.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SVETLANA KAZARIAN ET AL VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

The Court observes that Defendant’s objections consisted of various grounds, including that the categories in the deposition are overbroad, unduly burdensome, seek proprietary and trade secret information, are protected by attorney client privilege, and/or attorney work-product, and other such boiler-plate objections. Notably, the objections do not comply with CCP section 2025.410.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PERFECTED ROSES LLC V. WESTERLAY ORCHIDS LP, ET AL.

Overgaag defendants assert the right to challenge the amended complaint on other grounds, such as choice of law, failure to state a claim, and trade secret act preemption.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

MARIA DEL CARMEN VALDOVINOS ROSALES, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

In fact, Defendant's knowledge of the Theta II Defect since at least 2009 is demonstrated by Defendant's numerous patent applications acknowledging the widespread problems caused by the defective design of the Theta II.” (Complaint ¶ 41.) The Complaint further alleges that Defendant knew of the Theta II defect because of the numerous complaints that it received. (Id. ¶ 49, 51.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The error dooming Plaintiff’s case was patent on the face of the relevant eviction documents. Therefore, there was little risk associated with accepting the defense of this case. For that reason, the Court shall not award a multiplier. The Court shall award $325 per hour for 8.75 hours of legal work, for a total of $2,843.75. ORDER 1. The Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED, and Defendant Terry murphy is awarded $2,843.75 as attorneys fees pursuant to Civil Code § 798.85. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

AUCK VS ALLEN OLDSMOBILE CADILLAC, INC.

Additionally, it is apparent that these requests seek confidential, proprietary, trade secret information, and/or attorney-client privileged information. The motion to compel is DENIED as to RPD Nos. 10, 29-31, 38, 52 and 53. This ruling is without prejudice to plaintiff propounding additional requests that are more narrowly tailored to the issues in this case and limited in time and scope.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

LUXURY DINING GROUP LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS MICHAEL FORSYTH

Code 3426.1(b)(2) [misappropriation means “[d]isclosure or use of a trade secret of another...”].) Thus, those emails are discoverable. Likewise, the work product doctrine does not apply since these emails were not created by the attorney. (CCP § 2018.030.) Defendant also discusses various documents he claims falls into the attorney client privilege or settlement negotiations.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 85     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.