The Northern District granted a motion for leave to conduct third-party discovery on various internet service providers to determine the identity of an anonymous sender of trade secret information. SolarBridge Technologies, Inc. v. Doe, No. C10-03769 LHK (HRL), 2010 WL 3419189 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010) (slip op). Continue reading
A former employer was awarded $3,135 in compensatory damages after a Los Angeles Superior Court bench trial related to former sales employees’ alleged misappropriation of trade secrets . LifeSource Water Systems Inc. vs. Stansfield, GC041297, 36 Trials Digest 13th 12 (Judgment Date May 4, 2009). Plaintiff filed suit for breach of written contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and interference with prospective economic advantage. According to Trials Digest, the court issued a permanent injunction, ordered defendants to deliver all of plaintiff’s property in their possession, ordered Stansfield to pay $1,940 compensatory damages and ordered Kline to pay $1,195 compensatory damages. Continue reading
Plaintiff in a trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement case won a jury verdict for $11,909,797. I-Flow Corporation vs. Apex Medical Technologies Inc., No. 07CV01200(DMS), 36 Trials Digest 13th 16 (S.D. Cal. Verdict Date Oct. 28, 2009). As reported by Trials Digest, plaintiff’s award included $1,484,966 damages from defendant Apex to plaintiff for misappropriation of plaintiff’s trade secrets; and$1,484,966 damages from defendant McGlothlin to plaintiff for misappropriation of plaintiff’s trade secrets. Continue reading
The court in Adoma v. University of Phoenix, Inc., No. CIV. S-10-0059 LKK/GGH, 2010 WL 3431804 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2010 (slip op.) held that even where plaintiff’s proposed method of “reconstructing records of hours worked . . . will be imperfect”, plaintiffs may rely on “a few representative inquiries whose results will be extrapolated to the class.” Continue reading
The Third District in Miller v. Lifestyles Senior Housing Managers et al., No. C059843, 2010 WL 3398750 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist. Aug. 31, 2010), affirmed the trial court’s judgment confirming an arbitrator’s decision denying statutorily mandated attorneys fees to the prevailing plaintiff. Id. *1. Continue reading
Metropolitan Corporate Counsel has an interview with Alan Gutterman regarding how to implement a trade secret protection program. Gutterman recites some of the common elements to such a program:
[A]doption of security measures to mark trade secrets, thus, identifying what is or is not considered to be confidential. The programs also include segregation of trade secret information and limitation of access to the trade secret owner or other authorized personnel. I also recommend that a program places employees on notice that the company maintains confidentiality of its trade secret information and that each employee has a duty to assist in protecting such items. Continue reading
Today, in Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corporation, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, H033631, 2010 WL 3386479 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Aug. 30, 2010), the Sixth District held that where a defendant has not realized a profit or other calculable benefit as a result of his or her misappropriation of a trade secret, unjust enrichment is not provable within the meaning of section 3426.3(b). Thus, the trial court had discretion pursuant to section 3426.3(b) to order payment of a reasonable royalty.
Plaintiff Ajaxo Inc. (Ajaxo), sued defendant E*Trade Financial Corporation (E*Trade) for misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act. E*Trade was found liable in a prior jury trial, where a jury determined that E*Trade had willfully and maliciously misappropriated Ajaxo’s trade secrets. Id. *1. A second trial determined the extent to which E*Trade had been unjustly enriched by its misappropriation. Id. Continue reading
The Northern District held that no cause of action exists for “misappropriation of business ideas”. Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage PTE. Ltd., No. C 09-5812 RS (PVT), 2010 WL 3339520 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010) (slip op.).
Plaintiff Interserve, Inc. and Fusion Garage collaborated in an attempt to bring to market a tablet computer, which they intended to call the “CrunchPad.” Id. *1. Shortly before the parties had planned to announce that the product would soon be released, defendant Fusion Garage advised plaintiffs that it would proceed on its own, and market a tablet computer under the name “joojoo” instead. Id. Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging that they are co-owners of the joojoo. Id. They sought a preliminary injunction requiring defendant to sequester all proceeds it obtains from selling the product. Id. Defendant opposed the motion for preliminary injunction, and moved to dismiss the complaint, including a claim for misappropriation of “business ideas”. Id. Continue reading
In BMMSoft, Inc. v. White Oaks Technology, Inc., No. C-09-4562 MMC, 2010 WL 3340555 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2010), the court denied a motion to dismiss a misappropriation of trade secrets claim in an unauthorized software distribution case. The court held that the improper disclosure element was properly pled where the complaint included an allegation that defendant clicked “I agree” to an end user license agreement restricting unauthorized disclosure. Continue reading
Jim Brown and Marc Koonin of the California Employment Law Letter offer a useful Top 10 list of “Need to Knows” about California wage & hour laws:
California Employment Lawyer 