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 Resources for Intellectual Property Rights

Recent Rulings on Intellectual Property Rights

101-125 of 2463 results

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

    Nov 16, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 13, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 12, 2020

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

    Nov 12, 2020

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

    Nov 12, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 09, 2020

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

    Nov 06, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RUBEN MENDOZA V. CITY SPORTS CLUB, ET AL.

However, even accepting the facts asserted by Jesmar, the “completed and accepted” doctrine applies only to defects that are patent, and not to latent defects. (See Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1466–1470; Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 962, 969.) While Jesmar’s motion assumes the defect here was patent, there is no evidence of this fact before the Court, and this is also not a proper subject of judicial notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.

Vechik falsely represented to others that he was a partner and had rights to Plaintiff’s patent and had full license to market these technologies. Vechik took Plaintiff’s flash drive and laptop storing the digital data related to the Hydrogen Technology and E-Generator and refuses to return same. Vechik has also made threats to kill Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SCIARRINO VS NEUTRON HOLDINGS INC

Informal Resolution of Disputes and Excluded Disputes: If any controversy, allegation, or claim arises out of or relates to the Services, the Content, Your User-Submissions, this Agreement, or any Additional Terms, whether heretofore or hereafter arising (collectively, "Dispute"), or to any of Lime's actual or alleged intellectual property rights (an "Excluded Dispute"), then You and Lime agree to send a written notice to the other providing a reasonable description of the Dispute or Excluded Dispute, along

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PLAN B MGMT. VS DIVERSIFIED PANELS ET. AL.

., trade secret, confidential/ proprietary information, attorney-client privilege, etc.) to those requests for production. As stated by the First District Court of Appeal in California Shellfish Inc. v. United Shellfish Co. (1997) 56 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

AMAVARA INC VS DUBA

Section 2019.210 provides as follows: "In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under Uniform Trade Secret Act ... , 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 Civil Code Section 3426.5."

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SANRIO, INC. VS FAB STARPOINT LLC

Sanrio owns the intellectual property rights to hundreds of popular characters, including Hello Kitty. Defendant designs and manufactures numerous products, including backpacks, luggage, computer accessories, decorations, gifts, and stationery. In 2014, the parties entered into an agreement, which authorized FAB to manufacture and sell a wide range of products (“Licensed Articles”) featuring Sanrio characters. FAB agreed to pay Sanrio royalties.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SUSAN SCHOEN ET AL VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC ET AL

Trade Secret Objection Evidence Code section 1060 provides that “the owner of a trade secret has a privilege to refuse to disclose the secret, and to prevent another from disclosing it, if the allowance of the privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROHRBACK COSASCO SYSTEMS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ROLAND ANDERSON

Business and Professions Code section 16600 generally prohibits the enforcement of a nonsolicitation agreement in all cases in which the trade secret exception does not apply. (Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. Keck (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1176-77.) Accordingly, the ninth cause of action fails. The demurrer to the ninth cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Defendant is given 10 days to answer the remaining allegations in the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JASON ROSENBAUM VS MUFG UNION BANK NA

It was a trade secret case, not a FEHA case, and thus, did not determine whether seeking legal advice, accompanied by disclosure of sensitive company information to the attorney, could still constitute protected activity under FEHA that would be a substantial motivating factor in the termination decision. Defendant’s argument that the employee incidents chart does not contain anything remotely similar to Plaintiff’s admitted infraction goes to the weight of the evidence, which is for the jury to consider.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SAN PASQUAL FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AS CORPORATE TRUSTEE OF THE GLORYA KAUFMAN TRUST CREATED MARCH VS MICHAEL ROSENFELD, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

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

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STONEBRIDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED VS MATTHEW W. MARKATOS, ET AL.

of trade secret.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

ALEX JOHNSON, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE

Black & Decker argues a commercial relationship between Decedent’s employer and Black & Decker is untenable because Black & Decker purchased certain intellectual property rights to the Craftsman brand name after Decedent passed away. Black & Decker Dem. 14 n. 5. This asserted fact does not appear on the face of the FAC or on matters of which the court may take judicial notice, and this argument is inappropriate for the subject demurrer. See Donabedian, 116 Cal. App. 4th 968, 994 (2004).

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

QORUM INC VS CONNECTED LIVING INC

Parrish (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1278) Subjective misconduct exists where a plaintiff knows or is reckless in not knowing that its claim for trade secret misappropriation has no merit. A court may find subjective misconduct by relying on direct evidence of plaintiff's knowledge during certain points in the litigation and may also infer it from the speciousness of plaintiff's trade secret claim and its conduct during litigation. (Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc. (S.D.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STAHL VS CROSS

The Plaintiffs' only concern was that the Armaid2 might infringe on the expected Rolflex utility patent. At the time, the USPTO was still reviewing the Rolflex non-provisional utility patent. Considering the Plaintiffs' concerns, I reached out to ROM's patent attorney, Heidi Eisenhut, to determine if the Armaid2 might infringe on the expected utility patent for the Rolflex. . . . 24.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STAHL VS CROSS

The Plaintiffs' only concern was that the Armaid2 might infringe on the expected Rolflex utility patent. At the time, the USPTO was still reviewing the Rolflex non-provisional utility patent. Considering the Plaintiffs' concerns, I reached out to ROM's patent attorney, Heidi Eisenhut, to determine if the Armaid2 might infringe on the expected utility patent for the Rolflex. . . . 24.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 99     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.