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

Rulings on Intellectual Property Rights

1-25 of 2445 results

MEDINA VS UNILAB CORPORATION

Due to the exclusion of confidential and trade secret claims in the arbitration agreement, the agreement is substantively unconscionable.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

MANKARUSE V. RAYTHEON COMPANY

No. 11 requested plaintiff Mankaruse to: “For each ALLEGED TRADE SECRET, Intellectual Property, Patent, or Device that YOU identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1-8, identify with precision and specificity every third party to whom YOU, ATI, or AIC has ever disclosed each such Alleged Trade Secret, Intellectual Property, Patent, or Device.” Plaintiff’s supplemental response to Special Rog.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

THE DINI GROUP LA JOLLA INC VS. CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS INC

Cal. 2004) 345 F.Supp.2d 1042, Neothermia alleged that Rubicor obtained proprietary information in the course of business negotiations and used and revealed the information in Rubicor's own patent application. Neothermia sued for patent infringement and breach of a nondisclosure agreement. The first issue reached by the Neothermia court was does CCP §2019(d) [now §2019.210] apply when there is no misappropriation of trade secret cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANKARUSE V. RAYTHEON COMPANY

No. 11 requested plaintiff Mankaruse to: “For each ALLEGED TRADE SECRET, Intellectual Property, Patent, or Device that YOU identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1-8, identify with precision and specificity every third party to whom YOU, ATI, or AIC has ever disclosed each such Alleged Trade Secret, Intellectual Property, Patent, or Device.” Plaintiff’s supplemental response to Special Rog.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

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

    Nov 18, 2020

MOSHE BARKAT ET AL VS MEDLEY CAPITAL CORPORATION ET AL

“Once the data that constitute a trade secret are disclosed to others, or others are allowed to use those data, the holder of the trade secret has lost his property interest in the data.” (DVD Copy Control Ass'n, Inc. v. Bunner (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 864, 881.) “A patent protects an idea, i.e., an invention, against appropriation by others. Trade secret law does not protect ideas as such.” (Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 210, 220.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DR JOEL LINDEN PH D VS THERINJECT LLC

Is Therinject asserting only Claim 1 on page DEF000079 is the trade secret? Or all 25 claims? Notably, in Therinject's Ex. L, which is part of a Patent Application, there is reference to Claims 1-9. Are these the same Claims listed in the grant application [Linden's Ex. L]? If so, it appears that Therinject could be claiming that Claims 1-9 are their trade secrets. Therinject needs to be more specific regarding its trade secret description.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DR JOEL LINDEN PH D VS THERINJECT LLC

Is Therinject asserting only Claim 1 on page DEF000079 is the trade secret? Or all 25 claims? Notably, in Therinject's Ex. L, which is part of a Patent Application, there is reference to Claims 1-9. Are these the same Claims listed in the grant application [Linden's Ex. L]? If so, it appears that Therinject could be claiming that Claims 1-9 are their trade secrets. Therinject needs to be more specific regarding its trade secret description.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TATYANA MARISOL ALI VS TIME WARNER ET AL

“Once the data that constitute a trade secret are disclosed to others, or others are allowed to use those data, the holder of the trade secret has lost his property interest in the data.” (DVD Copy Control Ass'n, Inc. v. Bunner (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 864, 881.) “A patent protects an idea, i.e., an invention, against appropriation by others. Trade secret law does not protect ideas as such.” (Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 210, 220.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE, P.C. V. LAI

Generally, the issue of whether certain information constitutes a trade secret is a question of fact. (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 300.) While it is true that in certain circumstances a client list can constitute a trade secret (see, e.g., Morlife, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2018

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

AEROTEK INC VS. THE JOHNSON GROUP STAFFING COMPANY INC

Instead, Section 3426.5 of the UTSA directs the trial court to "preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means," which may include "sealing the records of the action."

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2011

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AEROTEK INC VS. THE JOHNSON GROUP STAFFING COMPANY INC

Instead, Section 3426.5 of the UTSA directs the trial court to "preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means," which may include "sealing the records of the action."

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2011

  • 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

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KONDA V. MARKOVIC, ET AL.

Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 923, 942 (stating that “[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”).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

WENDY DUJARDIN VS. RODAN AND FIELDS, LLC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

Further, to the extent that any trade secret or patent privilege is asserted, production is warranted subject to a protective order to maintain confidentiality of trade secrets. Any such privileged documents subject to a trade secret privilege must also be reflected in a privilege log. Granted as to Requests 1-20 and 4-70, except for 62-66, to the extent that further documents exist as determinated by the market life of the product, "Reverse." The logical time frame is defined by the product's lifespan.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2012

BRIGHTEDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. GABRIEL MARTINEZ, ET AL.

Searchmetrics GmbH is using the trade secret information in competition with BrightEdge causing injury to BrightEdge. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2018

VENKAT KONDA V. DEJAN MARKOVIC, ET AL.

Here, the UCL cause of action exclusively refers to the “disregard of Konda Tech’s intellectual property rights” (FAC, ¶ 82.), “misappropriated Konda Tech IP without attribution” (Id. at ¶ 83.), “misappropriated intellectual property” (Ibid), and “Defendants have systematically misappropriated Konda Tech IP” (Id. at ¶ 84.). Likewise, it alleges that Plaintiff was “deprived of customer licensees and revenue” and that Defendants have taken credit for the breakthroughs in technology…” (Id. at ¶ 85.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 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

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AGUSTIN GONZALEZ, ET. AL VS. DENBESTE ENGINE CO.

The elements of a misappropriation of trade secrets claim are: (1) defendant owned a trade secret; (2) the information was a trade secret at the time of misappropriation; (3) defendant improperly acquired, disclosed, or used the trade secret; (4) plaintiff was harmed; and (5) defendant’s acquisition, use, or disclosure was a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff. (Civil Code § 3426.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Brian S. Currey or Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

secret misappropriation) --that of the seven discrete trade secrets alleged, AC did not use Secret No. 7 (thus no trade secret misappropriation occurred).

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

secret misappropriation) --that of the seven discrete trade secrets alleged, AC did not use Secret No. 7 (thus no trade secret misappropriation occurred).

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

secret misappropriation) --that of the seven discrete trade secrets alleged, AC did not use Secret No. 7 (thus no trade secret misappropriation occurred).

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

secret misappropriation) --that of the seven discrete trade secrets alleged, AC did not use Secret No. 7 (thus no trade secret misappropriation occurred).

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

secret misappropriation) --that of the seven discrete trade secrets alleged, AC did not use Secret No. 7 (thus no trade secret misappropriation occurred).

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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.