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:
(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).)”.
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.
“[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.)
Defendants concede that any proposed contacts would not be for this purpose, but for litigation preparation and discovery, including exploration of what efforts were taken by plaintiffs to develop the business of unidentified parties, in order to evaluate the trade secret claims. It accordingly does not appear that any modification of the preliminary injunction is necessary.
Dec 11, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges that defendant La entered into an employment agreement with plaintiff which required La to protect confidential and trade secret information during and after his employment. In July of 2016, defendant La resigned from employment with plaintiff, and plaintiff learned a few months later that defendant La was working for a competitor, defendant Polymer Concepts Technologies, Inc.
Dec 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
An ambiguity can be patent, arising from the face of the writing, or latent, based on extrinsic evidence. (Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 33, 39-40, 69 Cal.Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641; Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865, 44 Cal.Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839.)” (Solis v. Kirkwood Resort Co. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 354, 360.) (3rd Dist Case.) “"An express release is not enforceable if it is not easily readable."
Dec 11, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
Contrary to plaintiffs' argument that section 353 only applies to patent defects, the section's language makes it clear that it applies equally to hidden defects, unknown to the vendee and concealed by the seller. (6 Witkin, supra, § 959, p. 344.) Section 353 focuses on the seller's knowledge of the risk and realization to act on that knowledge in assessing liability.
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Viacom, in turn, argues that the contract is not an unlawful covenant to compete because its non-compete covenant is limited to the contract period, and falls within the trade secret exception to section 16660. The Court finds that Viacom’s employment agreements do not contain unlawful non-compete covenants for the simple reason that Netflix has failed to support its argument with on-point statutory support. The cases relied on by Netflix concern at-will employment contracts. (See Kolani v.
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 3426.11 [“intentional disclosure of trade secret information… is not privileged and is not a privileged communication for purposes of [Civ. Code § 47(b)]”.) PHP next argues that the Cross-Complaint fails to allege that it suffered any damages as a result of the alleged violation of confidentiality obligations. First, this argument does not state why the factual allegations of paragraph 57 are irrelevant, false, or improper. (CCP § 436(a).)
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
INTRODUCTION 2 This action arises out of alleged trade secret misappropriation.
Dec 09, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Marco (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 357, 373 [assignment of invention rights to attorney with responsibility for securing patent and marketing device]; Pryor v. Bistline (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 437 [defendant nephew exercised undue influence over aunt suffering from a “severe chronic brain syndrome and senile psychosis” to transfer money to himself].) Moreover, in Odorizzi v.
Dec 09, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Plaintiff is to provide a verified response with the names of the past and present clients who have knowledge of the facts supporting the trade secret claims. No. 31: Granted. This interrogatory seeks the facts supporting the breach of contract claim. Plaintiff responded that Defendant disclosed the terms of a settlement agreement to third parties. Defendant seeks the identity of those third parties, which Plaintiff agreed to produce. Plaintiff is to provide a verified response with the names.
Dec 09, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
The paragraphs in the two declarations that discuss the trade secret and proprietary information are essentially a copy and paste declaration of one another. (Maron Decl., ¶ 4; Bengston Decl., ¶ 4.)
Dec 09, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant asserted various initial objections to the categories testimony and requests for production including but not limited to that they were: (1) overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, irrelevant, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2) sought information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine; and (3) sought confidential, proprietary and trade secret information.
Dec 08, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
That said, the Court would be inclined to impose a protective order per CCP section 2025.420(b)(13) regarding any trade secret information. If GM proposes a protective order in this case regarding trade secrets, the Court would order the parties to meet and confer regarding the language of such an order. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on the newly selected categories, on the related document requests, and on a mutually agreeable date for the deposition.
Dec 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(4) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be admitted or be admitted only in a certain way. (5) That some or all of the answers to requests for admission be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.
Dec 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The court has reviewed the above excerpts and determines that the following portions do not constitute trade secret and/or confidential information: 34:1-35:19; 37:9-18; 37:24-39:6; 41:16-44:4; 45:21-71:3; 83:2-91:25; 93:8-135:10; 138:8-143:2; 143:12-145:24; 153:7-20; 167:2-187:12; 193:6-205:19; 216:23-225:24; 226:24-227:15; 243:9-257:6 and Exhibits 16, 17 and 20.
Dec 04, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Los Angeles County, CA
(5) 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. (6) That the items produced be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.” Defendant moves for a protective order pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060 within its motion for reconsideration. A motion for protective order must be made promptly and include a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ.
Dec 03, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
“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.” (Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1665, citing Civ. Code, § 3426.1.)
Dec 03, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Finally, they allege defendant breached a trade secret/non-compete agreement he had signed at the outset of his employment in 2011. The three-count complaint was filed in December 2019. The case was delayed as the result of the court's 70+ day closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ROA 6, 9. Defendant answered and cross-complained in June 2020. ROA 11-12. The cross-complaint alleges contract and employment claims (among others). Plaintiffs have answered it. ROA 13.
Dec 02, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
However, in the interest of cooperation, AHM will produce Sections 3 and 5 of its 2017-2020 Service Operations Manual, directed to warranty repairs, which contain information that is confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary or trade secret, pursuant to the entry of an appropriate protective order.
Dec 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Additionally, “a 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 Court therefore finds that there is an that overcomes the right of public access to the record, that overriding interest supports sealing this record, and substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced absent sealing.
Dec 02, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 02, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Finally, they allege defendant breached a trade secret/non-compete agreement he had signed at the outset of his employment in 2011. The three-count complaint was filed in December 2019. The case was delayed as the result of the court's 70+ day closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ROA 6, 9. Defendant answered and cross-complained in June 2020. ROA 11-12. The cross-complaint alleges contract and employment claims (among others). Plaintiffs have answered it. ROA 13.
Dec 02, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
As alleged in the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), under Project Normandy, Coldwell Banker targeted First Team and selectively picked off its best managers and agents, by using trade-secret information provided by the First Team managers to Coldwell Banker. (TAC, ¶¶ 3, 64.) Since the documents requested by Request Nos. 1 through 4 and 47 through 50 seek production of documents related to this project/initiative Normandy, First Team has made a fact-specific showing that these Requests are relevant.
Dec 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Dec 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Even if the court were to find that Maxim did not have a good faith belief that the non-compete and non-solicitation agreements were viable, the cease and desist letters also asked that the Individual Defendants refrain from using, divulging or disclosing proprietary, trade secret or confidential information of Maxim. (FACC, Exs., F-H.) The operative Third Amended Complaint and each of the prior iterations of Maxim’s Complaint alleges a cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets.
Dec 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
Maxim states that prior to these depositions “Maxim was not aware that any entity other than LHHS was involved with the Individual Defendants’ misappropriation of Maxim’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. (Paisan Decl., ¶ 16.) Therefore, Maxim has sufficiently shown that it did not unreasonably delay in bringing the Motion. Plaintiff to give notice.
Dec 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
