Tag Archives: Huawei

Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Demurrer/Motion to Dismiss

Northern District Rejects Motion to Dismiss Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim

Takshashila Academic Complex in IIT Kharagpur
Image via Wikipedia

In Farhang v. Indian Institute Of Technology, Kharagpur, No. C-08-02658 RMW, WL 3504897 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2010), Defendant Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (“IIT”) moved to dismiss a complaint for misappropriation of trade secrets on the grounds that it failed to allege sufficient facts showing that: (1) the alleged trade secrets were subject to reasonable efforts to maintain their secrecy; (2) IIT misappropriated trade secrets; and (3) plaintiffs suffered harm as a result.  Id. *1.  The court denied the motion. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
C.C.P. § 2019.210 Pre-Discovery Disclosure, Discovery

Northern District Applies Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.210 Pre-Discovery Disclosure Requirements

Entrance gate of IIT Kharagpur
Image via Wikipedia

The Northern District applied California’s trade secret disclosure procedure, and found Plaintiff’s disclosure partially sufficient.  M.A. Mobile Ltd. v. Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, No. C08-02658 RMW (HRL), 2010 WL 3490209 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2010) (slip op.). Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

Evidence of Possession of Alleged Trade Secret and Ability to Bring Devices to Market Faster Than Claimant Sufficient to State Claim

Max Mathews on 80th birthday talking about all...
Image via Wikipedia

In Aqua-Lung America, Inc. v. American Underwater Products, Inc., 2010 WL 2991512 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2010) (slip op.), plaintiff moved for reconisderation of an order denying summary judgment on trade secret misappropriation claim for trade secret misappropriation.  Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California held that relying on evidence from an economic expert, joined with evidence that plaintiff was in possession of the alleged trade secrets and that it was able to bring its devices to market in advance of defendants, allows sufficient inferences to support the existence of triable issues of fact as to the trade secrets claim.  The court denied reconsideration.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta
Tagged , , , , , , ,