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

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

The Court finds that Defendant sufficiently establishes that the information to be sealed in the FAC relates to confidential and trade secret information relating to Defendant’s customer names, details of contracts, pricing, financial information and product information. The proposed redacted FAC is narrowly tailored, as it only redacts specific confidential and trade secret information of Defendant.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALPIN PATEL VS BRYAN ALLAN PAYTON, ET AL.

Dorman argues that allowing nonparties to attend the deposition remotely could allow nonparties to obtain trade secret information from Samara. In addition, Dorman argues allows for the deposition to be recorded for improper reasons, or to allow nonparties to message and assist Plaintiff’s counsel during the deposition.

  • Hearing

ALAN ALEXANDER IRIGOYEN ET AL VS EXEL INC ET AL

Discussion Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.060 provides that “[t]he court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense,” including “[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, subd. (b)(5).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BLUE TIGER RECOVERY INC VS NEWELL HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE ALLEGATIONS AND PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES BY CLINTON NEWELL, CYNTHIA STAVA, SCION COUNSELING LLC

Plaintiff seeks to strike the punitive damages prayer on the 3rd cause of action for Breach of the Duty of Loyalty and 5th cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret. Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts showing malice. Plaintiff may seek punitive damages for “oppression, fraud or malice” by the defendant. (CC § 3294(a).)

  • Hearing

NATHALY CONDE VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

Defendant also objected on grounds of confidentiality and claimed a trade secret privilege; however, Defendant does not cite any legal authority for the proposition that a party may withhold relevant discovery if it constitutes trade secret material. To the contrary, there is no trade secret privilege under California law and courts routinely allow such discovery pursuant to a protective order. Defendant’s argument regarding confidentiality, thus, fails.

  • Hearing

AFM & SAG-AFTRA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DISTRIBUTION FUND VS STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

., as trustees of the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Starr Indemnity & Liability Company OPPOSING PARTIES: Plaintiffs, Raymond M.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BLACKBERRY CORPORATION, ET AL. V. SENTINEL LABS, INC., ET AL.

But in actions for trade secret misappropriation, the court “shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include … sealing the records of the action ….” (Civ. Code, § 3426.5.) The usual sealing rules described above do not apply to records such as these, which “are required to be kept confidential by law.” (Cal.

  • Hearing

INTELLISOFT, LTD. V. ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected both asserted grounds for removal in a published opinion. 1 First, it held removal was improper under title 28 United States Code section 1441 because—although some of plaintiff’s evidence related to patents—plaintiff’s claim for trade secret misappropriation did not necessarily depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law. (Intellisoft, Ltd. v. Acer America Corporation (Fed.

  • Hearing

KRABER VS. PEYVAN

(Id. at 288 (“this case involves a one-time known damage event, the equivalent of a patent defect”) and 289 (“Where the Leaf plaintiffs were diligent in their attempts to ascertain the cause of their subsidence, including hiring experts and promptly pursuing claims against the only identified wrongdoers, plaintiffs in this case were not.”) The diligence of the cross-complainants here and what their experts could reasonably have discovered in 2017 rather than in 2019 is not yet known.

  • Hearing

MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY VS COHEN

As this is a trade secret case, such damages involve more ephemeral things like projection models to determine the particular value that a given trade secret may have had. To that extent, Monster's argument that the discovery prematurely seeks information that will be provided by expert witnesses has merit.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 18CV327382]

Venclose contends that 10 public disclosure of a trade secret destroys it, so there is no trade secret here because it was 11 allegedly disclosed by Esch and Venclose in a published patent application on October 1, 2015, 12 and was also disclosed by Covidien itself in its own patent applications in 2015. 13 In opposition Covidien argues that whether information is a trade secret is ordinarily a 14 question of fact, citing to San Jose Construction, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

XERA HEALTH LLC VS SCHEELE

In other words, the moving defendants have failed to present evidence that the terms "consulting services," "derivative products," and "standard representations and warranties" do not have commonly accepted definitions or meanings in the patent licensing, process-based chemical technology, and diet/health product arenas. Having failed to clear this initial hurdle essential to their motion, defendants failed to activate the requirement that plaintiff come forward with one or more triable issues of fact.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHN MELLESMOEN VS TINDER, INC.

Defendants represent the exhibits contain confidential and private information with regard to trade secret or competitively sensitive business, commercial and financial information. Specifically, Defendants move to seal Exhibits 1 through 5 to the Declaration of Jonathan Badeen, Exhibits 1 through 13 to the Declaration of Brian Norgard, Exhibits 1 through 15 to the Declaration of Sean Rad, and Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Ryan Ogle.

  • Hearing

GENNCOMM, LLC. VS BEVERLY HILLS TEDDY BEAR COMPANY, ET AL.

DISCUSSION BHTBC argues that the instant action should be stayed pending the Federal Case filed by Defendant to invalidate the two patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO.”) BHTBC relies upon the Federal Court’s ruling on Genncomm’s motion to dismiss to show that there are interrelated issues and a risk of conflicting results. (BHTBC’s Request for Judicial Notice Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RECON INDUSTRIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS COMMUNITY ENFORCEMENT PATROL INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Misappropriation Misappropriation is defined as: (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: (A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that knowledge of the trade secret was: (i) Derived from or through a person who had

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AFM & SAG-AFTRA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DISTRIBUTION FUND VS STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

HEARING DATE: November 17, 2020 CASE NUMBER: 18STCV10125 CASE NAME: AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund, et al. v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, et al. OPPOSING PARTIES: Plaintiffs, AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund, Raymond M.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BARRY FRIEDBERG VS RADAR PICTURES LLC

Discussion Plaintiff moves for an order directing Defendant Radar Pictures, LLC to assign its interests in payments, royalties, and commissions in connection with Radar’s intellectual property rights in the following films and television programs: 1) Jumanji, Welcome to the Jungle; a.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FORMOSA FABRIC INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS OMID LAVI, ET AL.

The FACC alleges sixteen causes of action as follows: (1) breach of contract against Lim, (2) breach of contract against Formosa, (3) breach of contract against Formosa, (4) breach of implied warranty against Formosa, (5) misappropriation of trade secrets against all cross-defendants, (6) tortious interference with contract against Formosa and Bin Liu, (7) tortious interference with prospective economic relations against all cross-defendants, (8) violation of California Uniform Trade Secret Act against all cross-defendants

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ERIKA FLORES, ET AL. VS FELIX CHEVROLET, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DBA FELIX CHEVROLET, ET AL.

Defendant argues that the categories and requests improperly seek trade secret material, and Defendant asserts it will be filing a Motion for Protective Order to ensure its information is appropriately protected if further document production is ordered. (Opposition, pg. 8; fn. 3.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CADENCE ACQUISITIONS LLC VS. SAID RAFEH

Cadence responded to this interrogatory solely by asserting objections/privileges, including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and trade secret privilege. The only one of these objections that Cadence makes any attempt to justify in its Opposition Brief is its trade secret objection, as to which it contends that "[t]he existence of the documents themselves are a trade secret." (See Opposition Brief, 6:16-17.)

  • Hearing

CADENCE ACQUISITIONS LLC VS. SAID RAFEH

Plaintiff refused to provide a full response to these requests based on general claims of trade secret privilege; no privilege log was submitted to the Court. If necessary, trade secret issues should be addressed via a protective order. Blanket refusals to provide discovery or respond to efforts to meet and confer, however, are not appropriate ways to address these types of discovery issues. Request for production no. 2 seeks Plaintiff's communications with Jeff Selick. Defendant Rafeh asserts that Mr.

  • Hearing

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

In fact, Defendant's knowledge of the GDI 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.” (FAC ¶ 41.) The FAC further alleges that Defendant knew of the GDI defect because of the numerous complaints that it received. (Id. ¶ 49, 51.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SONIA LAJAS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Plaintiff asserts that HMA fails to identify what specific proprietary or trade secret information could be utilized by its competitors nor does it identify some particular competitor whose discovery of such information could pose a threat to HMA’s business. Plaintiff finally contends that HMA’s motion is not narrowly tailored.

  • Hearing

GOURGEN DALIR VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

The Court notes that it is unclear why a protective order is needed to produce certain documents such as photographs of the incident and automobiles, repair estimates, etc. as they do not involve confidential or proprietary trade secret information as discussed in the motion for protective order. Thus, regardless of whether a protective order is in place, such documents should be produced.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

This protective order may include . . . one or more of the following directions: . . . (13) That 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 . . . (15) That the deposition be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.” (CCP § 2025.420(b).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 96     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.