What is the misappropriation of trade secrets?

Useful Rulings on Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Recent Rulings on Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

The misappropriation of trade secret claim fails because the information alleged to constitute a "trade secret" does not meet the statutory requirements. Oxford's purported "trade secrets" are neither unique when comparable to ARM's. Further, the "trade secrets", including the rates paid by one agency or the schedules of advertising campaigns, are available to others. There is no "secret" at issue.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

The misappropriation of trade secret claim fails because the information alleged to constitute a "trade secret" does not meet the statutory requirements. Oxford's purported "trade secrets" are neither unique when comparable to ARM's. Further, the "trade secrets", including the rates paid by one agency or the schedules of advertising campaigns, are available to others. There is no "secret" at issue.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

The misappropriation of trade secret claim fails because the information alleged to constitute a "trade secret" does not meet the statutory requirements. Oxford's purported "trade secrets" are neither unique when comparable to ARM's. Further, the "trade secrets", including the rates paid by one agency or the schedules of advertising campaigns, are available to others. There is no "secret" at issue.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

BELVEDERE HOTEL PARTNERSHIP VS HOUSSEM TASCO

The Court, however, already ruled that the intentional interference cause of action was superseded by CUTSA.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

Discovery Requirements for Misappropriation of Trade Secret Actions Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 provides: “In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Title 5 (commencing with Section 3426 ) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code), 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

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

Discovery Requirements for Misappropriation of Trade Secret Actions Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 provides: “In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Title 5 (commencing with Section 3426 ) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code), 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

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

PERFECTED ROSES LLC V. WESTERLAY ORCHIDS LP, ET AL.

California Uniform Trade Secrets Act Preemption: Defendants argue that the four causes of action are preempted by California’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (“CUTSA”), which is codified in Civil Code §§ 3426-3426.11. The CUTSA “does not affect … (2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret….” Civil Code § 3426.7. This “preempts common law claims that are ‘based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief.’” K.C.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

CROWDFOOD, INC. VS ALEX CANTER, ET AL.

COA 9: Violations of CUTSA The ninth cause of action is for violations of CUTSA by Plaintiff against Defendants Canter, Fuhr, Jacobs, Ordermark and Does 1-10. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under CUTSA. Defendant argues that the allegations in the complaint do not amount to a trade secret as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EMPLOYEE HEALTH SYSTEMS MEDICAL GROUP INC VS LEGACY MEDICAL GROUP INC

Defendants argue this cause of action is preempted by Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"), Civil Code section 3426 et seq. Except as expressly provided, the UTSA does not affect (1) contractual or criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or (2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret. Civ. Code, § 3426.7, subd. (b).

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEAFLOOR SYSTEMS, INC. V. TAMPLIN

As used in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civil Code, §§ 3426, et seq.) “‘Trade secret’ means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: ¶ (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and ¶ (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

RIESENMAN V. BASER

Plaintiff contends that defendants have continued to misappropriate the trade secret by continued use of the trade secret and has filed an action in the Sacramento County Superior Court asserting causes of action for misappropriation of trade secret, conversion by interference with plaintiff’s lien rights, and fraudulent transfer of property to avoid the judgment entered in this case. (Riesenman v. RoachKing, LLC, Case Number 34-2018-00246239.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

RIESENMAN V. BASER

Plaintiff contends that defendants have continued to misappropriate the trade secret by continued use of the trade secret and has filed an action in the Sacramento County Superior Court asserting causes of action for misappropriation of trade secret, conversion by interference with plaintiff’s lien rights, and fraudulent transfer of property to avoid the judgment entered in this case. (Riesenman v. RoachKing, LLC, Case Number 34-2018-00246239.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

PERFECTED ROSES LLC V. WESTERLAY ORCHIDS LP, ET AL.

California Uniform Trade Secrets Act Preemption: Defendants argue that the four causes of action are preempted by California’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (“CUTSA”), which is codified in Civil Code §§ 3426-3426.11. The CUTSA “does not affect … (2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret….” Civil Code § 3426.7. This “preempts common law claims that are ‘based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief.’” K.C.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

NGUYEN VS. LEE

Facts pled in the 66th and 73rd paragraphs of the SAC establish that these causes of action are separate and distinct from misappropriation of trade secret claims. (Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 495, 506.) Defendants to file an Answer within 20 days. Plaintiff to give notice. Defendant’s sole argument for demurrer to the 3rd, 4th, and 7th COAs is that is that they are superseded by the CUTSA.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

VENKAT KONDA V. DEJAN MARKOVIC, ET AL.

Preemption Defendants demur to the first, second, third and fifth causes of action on the basis that the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) preempts causes of action based on the misappropriation of confidential, trade secret information. CUTSA, or Civil Code sections 3426 through 3426.11, “provides the exclusive civil remedy for conduct falling within its terms, so as to supersede other civil remedies ‘based upon misappropriation of trade secret.’” (Silvaco Data Systems v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

BBB BONDING CORPORATION VS ASHLEY PILLING-MILLER ET AL

Cal. 2011) 782 F.Supp.2d 911, 994--CUTSA “does not supersede the intentional interference with contractual relations counter-claim to the extent it arises out of conduct unrelated to the misappropriation of [trade secret].” See also Civ. Code, §3426.7, subd. (b)(1)--CUTSA does not preempt or displace breach of contract claims that are based on misappropriation of trade secrets.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS INC ET AL VS TRINITY RIS

3426.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE ET AL VS VENKATESH KAMATH ET AL

The non-CUTSA claims therefore do not genuinely allege ‘alternative legal theories’ but are a transparent attempt to evade the strictures of CUTSA by restating a trade secrets claim as something else.”).) Farmers argues that preemption cannot be resolved at the pleading stage because the Court cannot yet untangle the distinction between Farmers’ allegedly misappropriated trade secret information and its non-trade secret information. (Opp. at 15 (citing Amron Intern. Diving Supply, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADVANCED ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC V. LUMASENSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CUTSA Exclusivity In support of Lumasense’s previous demurrer, it argued the CUTSA provides the exclusive remedy for alleged instances of trade-secret misappropriation such that Plaintiff’s claims for constructive fraud and violation of the UCL cannot be asserted. But Lumasense did not adequately analyze the allegations to support its position.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

O’CONNOR & SONS, INC. V. MARK SIMMONS, ET AL.

Thus, any claims aside from misappropriation under the CUTSA are preempted, according to Defendants. The determination of whether a claim is based on trade secret misappropriation is largely factual. (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 954-955.) Moreover, the CUTSA does not displace tort claims that are “independent and based on facts distinct from the facts that support the misappropriation claim.” (Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

CMB EXPORT LLC ET AL VS AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER LLC ET A

CUTSA is one of those exceptions to the general rule: it “occupies the field” in California, “[a]t least as to common law trade secret misappropriation claims.” (Id. at 954 (bold emphasis added).) As to statutory causes of action, CUTSA provides that it “does not supersede any statute relating to misappropriation of a trade secret, or any statute otherwise regulating trade secrets.” (Civil Code § 3426.7(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

TIANO V. GREENTH, INC.

The second cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of common law is based on the same nucleus of facts as the first cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of Civil Code Section 3426. Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 24-28, 33-35, and 37. Demurrer is sustained with 10 days leave to amend. Case Management Conference is continued to March 16, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C32.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

Under the CUTSA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff owned a trade secret; (2) the defendant acquired, disclosed, or used the trade secret through improper means; and (3) the defendant's actions damages the plaintiff. (Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1665.) Judicial notice of the Standard Terms and Conditions for Internet Advertising for Media Buys One Year or Less, Version 3.0 – Exhibit A.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

Under the CUTSA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff owned a trade secret; (2) the defendant acquired, disclosed, or used the trade secret through improper means; and (3) the defendant's actions damages the plaintiff. (Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1665.) Judicial notice of the Standard Terms and Conditions for Internet Advertising for Media Buys One Year or Less, Version 3.0 – Exhibit A.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

SPIKES INC VS JOHN YOON ET AL

This is a complaint for misappropriation of trade secret and injunctive relief arising out of Plaintiff, Spikes, Inc., doing business as Hollywood Body Jewelry (“HBJ”) wholesale jewelry business. HBJ alleges that it only sells product from its website to merchants for placement in retail stores, and that information regarding HBJ’s clients is kept confidential on their server, on which information is kept confidential through various security measures HBJ undertakes.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.