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

201-225 of 2465 results

TRACEE WALKER VS PICO RENTS, INC. DBA PARTY RENTS & SELLS

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 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

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

REILLY FINANCIAL ADVISORS LLC VS CARIANI

A party suing for misappropriation of trade secrets must "identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity" before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.210; see also Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

REILLY FINANCIAL ADVISORS LLC VS CARIANI

A party suing for misappropriation of trade secrets must "identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity" before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.210; see also Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LORI SAMMIS VS BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.

secret misappropriation or non-compete claims (Id. at ¶ 4); and (4) that during her employment, Moving Defendant has not filed a single California court action against any employee for at least the last 10 years, including claims for trade secret misappropriation and non-compete claims.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VANESSA F. MARTINEZ VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

The court finds Ford demonstrates that the overriding interest of protecting the confidentiality of materials relating to highly sensitive and confidential trade business and/or trade secret information overcomes the right of public access to the record and that this overriding interest supports sealing of the record. CRC 2.550(d)(1) and (2). NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178 and Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JUSTIN ORTIZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Defendant’s General Objections to Multiple RFPs First, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s requests impermissibly seek trade secret materials. Opp. to RFP Mot. at 9-11. Defendant relies on Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Newman & Holtzinger, 39 Cal. App. 4th 1194, 1209 (1995), for the proposition that manufacturers “have a legitimate interest in protecting [their] trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information.” Id. at 11.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

RYAN ANDREW BERGSTROM VS LOERA TRUCKING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

.¿ 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

    Sep 16, 2020

NATURES PRODUCE VS DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

“[Code of Civil Procedure] Sections 337.1 and 337.15 apply to actions for damages against persons involved in the construction of improvements to real property, … , and establish four-year and 10-year statutes of limitation for patent and latent defects, respectively.” (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 643.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANNETTE VERBERA VS ARPINEH KESHISHIAN, 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

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KAREN HORWITZ, ET AL. VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA , ET AL.

The Regents seek a protective order under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2017.020, 2025.420, and 2031.060 preventing the PMK deposition from going forward, that the scope of the deposition be limited, and that trade secret or other confidential research, development and commercial information not be disclosed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IWANAGA V. GLOBAL FINANCIAL DATA INCORPORATED

Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 923, 942-943, states, “A cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets requires a plaintiff to show the plaintiff owned the trade secret; at the time of misappropriation, the information was a trade secret; the defendant improperly acquired, used, or disclosed the trade secret; the plaintiff was harmed; and the defendant's acquisition, use, or disclosure of the trade secret was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm. (Altavion, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

TY EDWIN HUDSON VS GREG KHOUNGANIAN, ET AL.

completed two fellowships following his residency; (3) He has practiced chronic pain management for over 40 years; (4) He is familiar with the devices at issue because he uses them in procedures and has taught the technology to other doctors; (5) He is familiar with the risks and benefits, as well as alternative treatments, for someone like Plaintiff; (6) He has published on both the use of paddle and percutaneous leads in the treatment of chronic pain syndrome; and (7) He has invested a paddle lead and sold the patent

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JON CRITTENDEN VS LAURA A LAMBERT

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

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

REACTX LLC VS GOOGLE LLC

Under section 2019.210, “[i]n any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret . . . before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity. . ..”

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RISA SOTO VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION/CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CDCR also cites a line of authority that holds a court will not disturb an agency's choice of penalty absent a patent abuse of discretion. (See, e.g., Cassidy v. California Bd. of Accountancy (2013) 220 Cal.App.4"' 620, 627-28.) All ofthe cases cited by CDCR, however, arose under section 1094.5, and it is thus not clear they would apply here.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

RISA SOTO VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION/CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CDCR also cites a line of authority that holds a court will not disturb an agency’s choice of penalty absent a patent abuse of discretion. (See, e.g., Cassidy v. California Bd. of Accountancy (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 620, 627-28.) All of the cases cited by CDCR, however, arose under section 1094.5, and it is thus not clear they would apply here.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

JAMILAH JACKSON VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

· Trade Secret: The party claiming a trade secret privilege has the burden of establishing its existence. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

SUPERIOR COURT VS. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES

Despite the claim of not being properly served, Milpitas Mill states that it will provide responses and documents responsive to the requests not subject to any privilege or that are proprietary and trade secret. But the reply papers of the plaintiff provide a different story.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

WONDERLAND BRANDS CALIFORNIA, LLC VS. DEV BAKERY, LLC

To the extent any information sought is confidential or trade secret information, the parties may present a proposed stipulation and order to the Court. Prevailing party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

APPLIED MEDICAL DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION VS. JARRELLS

Plaintiff also demonstrates that the misappropriation of its product launch plan, which constitutes a trade secret, is in Defendants’ possession and has been utilized. (PF 26, 27-29.) Further, Plaintiff has submitted evidence of Defendants’ use of its customer list, which has led Bruin to generate tens of thousands of dollars of sales using Plaintiff’s trade secrets. (PF 30, 31, 56, 60.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

PHAM VS. MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION

Likewise, Defendant and its employees, (who had been recorded during the meetings and presentations), also served objections to the production, including objections based on trade secret and the right of privacy. (Gessin Decl. at ¶¶ 7-9, Exhs D-F; Newman Decl. at ¶ 3, Exhs. C-E.) Neither the SDDA, nor the OCDA, are actively investigating Defendant. (ROA 93—Kazemi Decl. at ¶¶ 2-4.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

REACTX LLC VS GOOGLE LLC

Under section 2019.210, “[i]n any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret . . . before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity. . ..”

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CESAR SOLORIO V. FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER

McCurley’s testimony will seek confidential trade secret information. Not only is there already a valid protective order in this case covering such confidential matters, but, at the very most, Defendant’s counsel could object to such questions at the deposition. This is not an appropriate ground to refuse to produce Mr. McCurley altogether. 5. The Discovery Cut-Off Has Passed, but the Court Will Still Hear the Motion to Compel After asking Plaintiff to hold off on further efforts to procure Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT VS. AGUILA

As to the Second COA (Breach of Duty of Loyalty): Plaintiff argues the Second Cause of Action has no merit because Defendant Oscar Aguila did not owe Plaintiff a duty to refrain from forming, owning, or working for a competing company; the California Uniform Trade Secret Act preempts Plaintiff’s claim; and neither ProActive Realty Investments, Inc. nor Rita Aguila were Plaintiff’s employees, officers, or directors.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

NAVJOT SINGH VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

A party asserting a trades secret objection must “submit an affidavit based on personal knowledge listing the affiant's qualifications to give an opinion, identifying the alleged trade secret, identifying the documents disclosing the trade secret, and presenting evidence that the secret qualifies as a trade secret.” (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 1130, 1144–45). II. Discovery At Issue 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  « 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.