Code Section Group
5 stars based on
Holland and Jared M. The declaration included attachments that contained the alleged trade secrets. Under California law, one of the requirements of trade secret status is that the information be kept secret by its owner.
The defendant claimed this was bad faith conduct and filed a motion asking that the attorney and plaintiffs be sanctioned. The Court made clear that whether the declaration actually contained trade secrets was immaterial. What was important was that the attorney and trade secret damages california clients had violated the terms of the protective order. The Court also quashed any notion that the ends may have justified the means by finding that the limited, inadvertent disclosure of the declaration did not negate the confidentiality of the declaration since defendant filed the document under seal in compliance with the protective order.
One of the challenges in trade secret disputes is to balance the dissemination of sensitive information through discovery while trying to ensure that the information remains confidential. Protective orders are designed to facilitate the safe exchange of information and attorneys are supposed to act as gate keepers to ensure that the information disclosed by the other side is trade secret damages california made public and in many circumstances not even made available to their own clients.
Thus, it is not surprising that the Court upheld an order for sanctions against both the attorney and her clients who took steps to try to circumvent the protective order and negate the trade secret status of information that the owner took reasonable steps to keep secret.
See Cypress Semiconductor Corp. Superior Court Cal. Code trade secret damages california Civil Procedure section Franzen Cal. Plaintiffs will frequently contend that a list of general categories and concepts is sufficient to identify their alleged trade secrets, supported by cases consistent with their position.
They find support in cases such as Myrio Corp. LEXISwhere the court required that plaintiff serve an Amended Identification of Trade Secrets, and it ordered that the alleged trade secrets be concisely described trade secret damages california narrative form. A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, provides guidance on this conflict, and attempts to strike a balance. Angelin Cal. Rather, such an explanation is required only when, given the nature of the alleged secret or the technological field in which it arises, the details provided by the claimant to identify the secret are themselves inadequate to permit the defendant to learn the boundaries of the secret and investigate defenses or to permit the court to understand the designation and fashion discovery.
The claimant named two alleged trade secrets: He claimed that his formula produced a unique high-protein, low carbohydrate pudding unlike any other healthy alternative pudding on the market, and he listed the fifteen ingredients by common name and the percentage of the total pudding. Claimant also listed the same fifteen ingredients by their supplier and brand name, and he described each step in the mixing, testing, and code marking of the pudding.
Brescia is significant because it balances the important policy considerations behind Section On the one hand, the statute attempts to ensure that defendants understand the specific claims against them so that they can prepare an adequate defense.
Trade secret damages california, in its analysis the Court emphasized the flexibility that courts have in determining the degree of particularity that is trade secret damages california in each case. When more sophisticated technologies, for example, are at issue, courts will almost trade secret damages california require a plaintiff to be more specific when identifying their alleged trade secrets. Until recently, California state law was unclear as to whether there was a legal distinction between a misappropriation of trade secret claim under CUTSA and claims for the misuse of confidential information that did not meet the legal definition of a trade secret.
Instead of having trade secret damages california single trade secret damages california of limitations, potentially numerous statute of limitations could apply to different claims based on the same nucleus of facts.
Moreover, they can not plead around this legal standard or seek relief under an alternative theory by alleging various other common law or statutory causes of action based on the same nucleus of facts. Parrish, 2d Civil No. B, WL Cal. June 15, is a clear warning to plaintiffs who pursue an action for misappropriation of trade secrets for the primary goal of stifling legitimate competition or without having any evidence to support the claim.
The court examined all of the varied positions taken by the plaintiff, FLIR Systems, and found them all to be without merit, bad faith tactics and wholly lacking in evidentiary support. FLIR Systems paid the price for this: The defendants were shareholders and officers of Indigo, which manufactured and sold microbolometers, a device used in connection with infrared cameras, night vision, and trade secret damages california imaging.
After the sale of the company, defendants continued working at Indigo. Indefendants decided to start a new company called Thermicon to mass produce bolometers. FLIR Systems rejected the offer and wished defendants success in trade secret damages california new endeavor. In earlydefendants entered into negotiations with another company, Raytheon, to acquire licensing, technology, and manufacturing facilities for Thermicon.
Upon learning of the lawsuit, Raytheon terminated its negotiations with defendants, and defendants decided not to go forward with Thermicon. After substantial testimony, the trial court found no misappropriation or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.
See Continental Car-Na-Var v. Moseley 24 Cal. It was uncontroverted that defendants received no funding for Thermicon, did trade secret damages california start a new business, had no employees or customers, did not lease a trade secret damages california or develop technology, and did not design, produce, sell, or offer to sell infrared products. The trial court further found that FLIR Systems maintained the action in bad faith by imposing unnecessary settlement conditions.
The trial court found trade secret damages california the other settlement terms were not related to the trade secret action and were made for an anticompetitive purpose 2.
Too often such actions are filed as a legally driven tactic to secure a competitive advantage, rather than as an effective response to actual wrongdoing based on real evidence.
FLIR Systems should give pause to any party considering such tactics. Moseley, supra, 24 Cal. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. With employee mobility on the rise due to a poor economy and entrepreneur-driven trade secret damages california industries, employers increasingly have to deal with problems associated with former employees exploiting the trade secret damages california and contacts they developed during their employment to set up competing enterprises.
In many situations, there is little that an employer can legally do to prohibit their former employees from using information the former employee was paid to develop to compete against them. In Trade secret damages california, however, non-competition agreements are invalid under California Business and Professions Code Sectioneven if narrowly drawn, unless they fall within an express statutory exception. Trade secret litigation, especially in the Silicon Valley, can be very complex depending on the information, technology, formula or process at issue.
In many cases the alleged trade secrets consist of non-technical business information, which can still have significant commercial value, such as unique information about customers. Although not scientifically complex, trade secret cases involving customer lists have been frequently litigated. However, the identities of customers alone is often not considered a trade secret because it takes little time and effort to independently cultivate this information.
The former employee will typically argue that the identities of customers claimed to be a trade secret can be located in public records such as telephone directories and industry publications, so these are not a protectable trade secret. Kirgan Cal. In San Jose Construction, Inc. The employers were local competitors in commercial construction, and the former employee had taken project documents from his former employer shortly before he left to join the competitor and immediately compete for the same projects.
Defendants unsuccessfully argued that such information could not be trade secrets because it was created by, or had been disclosed to, third parties. What plaintiff sought to protect was the overall compilation of the correspondence involving architects, SJC, and project owners; descriptions of the proposed scope of each project, measurements for each project building, and detailed cost estimates.
The subcontractors each had a piece, and the owners had a piece, but no one except SJC had it all. Similarly, in Courtesy Temporary Service, Inc. Camacho Cal. Recent decisions make it clear, however, that a compilation of information about customers that requires significant time and effort to cultivate, as long as trade secret damages california steps are taken to protect its secrecy, may be trade secrets.
Angelin March Cal. In his trade secret disclosure statement, the claimant provided a very concise and succinct description of his pudding formula and manufacturing process.
The Brescia Court concluded that Section After analyzing the significance of the Brescia decision and an earlier case, Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. Superior Court, Cal.
The Perlan Therapeutics Court further cited to Advanced Trade secret damages california Sputtering when explaining its position that trial courts have broad discretion under Section Perlan Therapeutics does not further clarify what level of specificity is required in a trade secret disclosure statement under Section Instead, it emphasizes the broad discretion that courts have in determining the degree of particularity that is reasonable in each case.
The practical effect of Perlan Therapeutics is that to the extent possible, plaintiffs will forum shop for judges who have a history of allowing plaintiffs to commence discovery after serving trade secret disclosure statements with a lower degree of specificity than others, which may result in a wide range of decisions even when the facts of some cases are similar.
In some cases, for example, depending on the sophistication of the judge and how he or she perceives the technology at issue, plaintiffs may be forced to distinguish between protected information and information that is publicly available, while other judges may not require the same standards.
About the law that affects your lives and businesses in the Silicon Valley and Northern California. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The Next Venue Frontier: Narrowing the Claims in Trade Secret Litigation: Sohigian on AB Commission Agreements, Grammar, and Legislative Pollution.