What is the misappropriation of trade secrets?

Useful Rulings on Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Recent Rulings on Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

BLUE TIGER RECOVERY INC VS NEWELL HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE ALLEGATIONS AND PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES BY CLINTON NEWELL, CYNTHIA STAVA, SCION COUNSELING LLC

Plaintiff seeks to strike the punitive damages prayer on the 3rd cause of action for Breach of the Duty of Loyalty and 5th cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret. Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts showing malice. Plaintiff may seek punitive damages for “oppression, fraud or malice” by the defendant. (CC § 3294(a).)

  • Hearing

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

of trade secret.”

  • Hearing

BRADLEY MOLS VS. ANGELA TORRES

Moving parties argue that clients' identities are not proprietary information unless they fall into the narrow definition of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA). They further argue that cross-complainants "do not assert evidence sufficient to support a trade secret violation under CUTSA." (Motion, page 5:22-23). However, this misunderstands moving parties' own burden of production on this motion.

  • Hearing

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION CO. V. RACHEL ELLIS

The essential elements of a claim for misappropriation of a trade secret under California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) are: 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 action damaged the plaintiff. (CytoDyn of New Mexico, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharm., Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 288, 297.)

  • Hearing

JAMILA SOZAHDAH VS DRIP DOCTORS, INC., ET AL.

On May 26, 2020, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants including Sozahdah for the following causes of action: (1) Misappropriation of Trade Secret; (2) Interference with Prospective Business Advantage; (3) Trespass to Chattels; (4) Violation of Cal. Pen Code § 502, et seq.; (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (6) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (7) Defamation Per Se.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SEVEN BUBBLES INC. VS MENGHAN LI, ET AL.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Breach of Contract Fraud Conversion Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Per Civil Code Section 3426 A Case Management Conference is set for October 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

PARAMOUNT EXCLUSIVE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS NEWFRONT INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Defendant argues that this cause of action is preempted by the CUTSA. ¶ 85 alleges that the allegations set forth at paragraphs 57 through 64 (conversion) and 69 through 84 (Breach of Contract—Solicitation of Employees and Aiding and Abetting) constitute unfair business practices in violation of B & P Code § 17200. As discussed above, the conversion cause of action is preempted by the CUTSA[3].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DRIVE SHOPS INC. VS WILLIAM PELLETIER

Second Cause of Action for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets California adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) in 1984 and codified the same in Civil Code section 3426, et seq.

  • Hearing

DON LEE FARMS VS SAVAGE RIVER INC

BACKGROUND On May 25, 2017, DLF filed a complaint arising from an alleged breach of an exclusive supply agreement, alleging causes of action against Defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory relief—termination rights; (3) misappropriation of trade secrets pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 3426 et seq.; (4) money owed and due—common count; and (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq.

  • Hearing

GUZIK TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES V. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

(Ibid.) 12 Defendant argues that, with respect to the first allegation, the cause of action is 13 preempted by California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”). CUTSA preempts common 14 law claims that are based on the same nucleus of facts as a misappropriation of trade secrets 15 claim. (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC ET AL VS XAVIER RUFFIN ET AL

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion in the alternative for summary adjudication by finding that: (1) Plaintiff is to be awarded $833,188.09 in damages for misappropriation of trade secret based on unjust enrichment; and (2) Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees for Defendants’ willful and malicious conduct to Plaintiff as a prevailing party pursuant to Civil Code section 3426.4. Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling and prepare a proposed judgment.

  • Hearing

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS KKW BEAUTY, LLC, FORMERLY KKW BEAUTY, INC.

(Defendant) and Does 1 through 25, alleging claims for: (1) violation of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act – California Civil Code section 3426 et seq.; and (2) declaration of rights under a contract. This matter is related to case number 20VECV00721, Seed Beauty, et al. v. Coty, Inc., et al.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS COTY, INC., ET AL.

(Prestige), King Kylie, LLC (Kylie) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 25, alleging claims for: (1) violation of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act – California Civil Code section 3426 et seq.; (2) breach of contract; (3) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (4) injunctive relief. This matter is related to case number 20VECV00684, Seed Beauty, et al. v. KKW Beauty., et al.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

REACTX LLC VS GOOGLE LLC

Trade Secret Identification Under CCP Section 2019.210 It is helpful to begin with the elements of a CUTSA cause of action: (1) possession by the plaintiff of a trade secret; (2) the defendant’s misappropriation of the trade secret, meaning its wrongful acquisition, disclosure, or use; and (3) resulting or threatened injury to the plaintiff. (Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 210, 220.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

REACTX LLC VS GOOGLE LLC

Trade Secret Identification Under CCP Section 2019.210 It is helpful to begin with the elements of a CUTSA cause of action: (1) possession by the plaintiff of a trade secret; (2) the defendant’s misappropriation of the trade secret, meaning its wrongful acquisition, disclosure, or use; and (3) resulting or threatened injury to the plaintiff. (Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 210, 220.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT VS. AGUILA

To the extent the COA is based on misappropriation of trade secret, it is preempted. (See K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 9554.) To the extent the COA is based on Oscar’s competing with Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not cite any authority in either the FAC or the Opposition, that a breach of loyalty based on competition can form the basis of a section 17200 claim under either the unlawful or unfair prong. SAI is GRANTED as to the 3rd COA.

  • Hearing

ROMA COSTUMES INC VS ROBERT EMMERMAN

INTEREST COMPUTATIONS (CRC 3.1800(a)(3)) [X] ATTORNEY FEE DECLARATION -- Request according to Local Rule 3.214 or reason provided why greater fees should be allowed (CRC 3.1800(b)) [ ] Request for atty fees allowed by statute or agreement of parties (CRC 3.1800(a)(9)): Permitted by Statute (California Civil Code §3426.4 authorizes the Court to award attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party on a claim for Misappropriation of Trade Secret.)

  • Hearing

COLOURPOP COSMETICS LLC VS. JORDYNN CHEENEY

"It is crucial to any CUTSA cause of action - and any defense - that the information claimed to have been misappropriated be clearly identified." (Agency Solutions.Com, LLC, 819 F. Supp. 2d at 101.)

  • Hearing

GRENINGER VS. SANTO

Furthermore, it is not clear to the Court that the testimony from Plaintiff’s former clients that they were not solicited (see Hilliard Decl. at ¶¶ 3-31, Exs. 1-29), is dispositive of whether or not Defendants violated CUTSA by utilizing Plaintiff’s customer list. The question is whether former employees used trade secret information to solicit the business of their former employer’s customers, not whether they were successful.

  • Hearing

CELL-CRETE CORPORATION VS. SCOTT TAYLOR

The third amended complaint (“3AC”), filed September 18, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) damages for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civil Code, §§3426-3426.11), and (2) intentional interference with economic relations. B. Motions on Calendar On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order for terminating sanctions against Throop.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SETH ROGERS V. ITY LABS CORP., ET AL.

Elysium Health, Inc. (2019) 369 F.Supp.3d 983, 989–990 [“CUTSA does not preempt breach of fiduciary duty claims where those claims are not premised on the taking or use of confidential information”].) Finally, Innogy NV contends that Rogers’s fiduciary duty and UCL claims fail “[a]s a technical matter” because he alleges only that Innogy NV and Cong own a majority of one class of stock, not iTy as a whole.

  • Hearing

ICONIC ENGINE, INC. V. AIREY

Defendants demur to the second cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret on the ground the claim lacks the specificity and particularity that California’s pleading standards require. Defendants contend that the California Uniform Trade Secret Act requires that the information claimed to have been misappropriated clearly be clearly identified and cites to C.C.P. section 2019.210 as legal authority.

  • Hearing

DFCU BANK LIMITED VS JOHN DOES

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) defamation; and (2) misappropriation of trade secret[1].

  • Hearing

DOLLAR SHAVE CLUB INC ET AL VS EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE CO ET

of trade secret.”

  • Hearing

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.