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

151-175 of 2445 results

MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.

Background Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of certain patents and intellectual property that converts hydrogen into energy, including, but not limited to, United States Patent No. US 2010/0122914 A1. On or around December 14, 2019, Terry L. Vechik (“Vechik”), Ruud Koekkoek aka Rudolph Koekkoek (“Koekkoek”), Matchcorp Fin.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendant has also failed to explain what trade secret information would be disclosed by the deposition. Categories: Category 1 request the entire original file for the Vehicle. This category does not call for privileged information and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Category 2 requests the entire original file related to Plaintiffs’ request to repurchase the Vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The types of payments that can be assigned include wages due from the federal government if not subject to a withholding order, rents, commissions, royalties, patent or copyright payments, and insurance policy loan value. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.510, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WOLFE VS PNMAC HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR COMPEL PROD OF DOCS & FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQ F/PROD OF DOCS SET 1 BY CITIMORTGAGE INC

RESPONSE: PNMAC objects to this Request on the grounds that it: (i) is overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing, particularly with respect to "all DOCUMENTS regarding;" (ii) it seeks information protected by the attorney work product doctrine and attorney client privilege; and (iii) seeks documents that reflect proprietary, confidential and/or trade secret information.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

CHARLEY JOHNSTON VS. DAVID MENEGHINI

.) ¶¶ 66-67 allege that Defendant owed a duty to follow Judge Meyer’s Final Judgment, and pay Plaintiff the sum of $38,649.50. 5th CAUSE OF ACTION MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS: Under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (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

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SKYBOUND INTERACTIVE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS DISRUPTOR BEAM, INC.

Skybound is a developer and publisher of entertainment content and controls certain intellectual property rights related to the comic book series The Walking Dead. RK is the owner of The Walking Dead comic book series and all intellectual property rights therein. Disruptor Beam is in the business of developing and distributing video games on a variety of distribution channels and platforms.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

TMTE INC. VS ALEXANDER SPELLANE, ET AL.

One example of an independent ground supporting an action in tort, apart from contractual claims alleged, is a violation of trade secret protections. (Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 564, 577.) Defendant argues that “the chief allegations in this lawsuit is that Spellane did not abide by various contractual terms relating to solicitation of clients, confidentiality of business information, and prohibition on business opportunities directed at him.” (Motion, p. 12:8-10.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

ARUNRAT YACHARN VS SUNNYVIEW CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL , ET AL.

Additionally, Sunnyview objected on the grounds that it called for privileged information protected by attorney client privilege, trade secret, work product privilege and in violation of Civil Code section 3295. (Id.) The court will not compel a further response to this request for the same reasons stated with regard to request 59.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

BLT COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JULIANNE LAMARCHE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that during the course of the other lawsuit, defendants have publicly disclosed proprietary and trade secret information of BLT which defendants were obligated to keep confidential. The First Amended Complaint in the lead case alleges causes of action for fraud and deceit, conversion of property, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of written contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KAIRI HARVIG VS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(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. Family Code § 3665 states: (a) A copy of the prior year's federal and state personal income tax returns shall be attached to the income and expense declaration of each party.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order. Production is to be made within 10 calendar days. No sanctions are awarded.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order. Production is to be made within 10 calendar days. No sanctions are awarded.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE- ORANGE COUNTY V LEWANDOWSKI

These Requests are relevant to efforts Coldwell Banker made to prevent departing agents or employees from taking confidential information with them or misappropriating such information and is relevant to First Team's trade secret misappropriation claim. The Requests are limited in scope to the topic of policies and efforts made by Coldwell Banker to ensure departing employee/agents did not take confidential information from First Team and are therefore not overly broad and unduly burdensome.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order. Production is to be made within 10 calendar days. No sanctions are awarded.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order. Production is to be made within 10 calendar days. No sanctions are awarded.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order. Production is to be made within 10 calendar days. No sanctions are awarded.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SANGJOON JAY LEE, , AS TRUSTEE OF THE SANGJOON AND JOONGWHA LEE LIVING TRUST DATED APRIL 24 2008, ET AL. VS PAUL MCGRATH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

, surveying, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction of an improvement to, or survey of, real property; (2) Injury to property, real or personal, arising out of any such patent deficiency; or (3) Injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such patent deficiency.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

HAYE VS JIMMIE JOHNSON KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET

Defendant does not explain how a proper protective order would not address its privacy or trade secret concerns. The Court orders production of the employee handbook subject to an "attorneys' eye only" protective order. Production is to be made within 10 calendar days. No sanctions are awarded.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE – ORANGE COUNTY V LEWANDOWSKI

Request No. 77: The Request is relevant to First Team's claim of trade secret misappropriation.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

DRIVE SHOPS INC. VS WILLIAM PELLETIER

Civil Code section 3426.1 defines “Misappropriation” as: (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that 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 his or her knowledge of the trade secret was: (i) Derived from

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The types of payments that can be assigned include wages due from the federal government if not subject to a withholding order, rents, commissions, royalties, patent or copyright payments, and insurance policy loan value. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.510, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT INC. VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC.

On July 20, 2020 Starline answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Lionsgate for: C/A 1: Breach of Contract C/A 2: Fraudulent Promise C/A 3: Declaratory Relief Starline alleges that Lionsgate breached the contract between them by failing to assist Starline in marketing La La Land, failing to protect intellectual property rights, and breaching other terms of the agreement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PARTAKER VS. HYNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Rather, Plaintiff and Bridgman contend that Bridgman is capable of providing testimony on the topics disclosed in Plaintiff’s expert witness designation without disclosing privileged, confidential, or trade secret information.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

GUZIK TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES V. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

secret information, it is preempted by CUTSA.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 98     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.