Photo of James Kachmar

James Kachmar

Subscribe to James Kachmar's Posts

James is a shareholder in Weintraub Tobin’s litigation section.  He represents corporate and individual clients in both state and federal courts in various business litigation matters, including trade secret misappropriation, unfair business competition, stockholder disputes, and intellectual property disputes.

Follow:Read more about James KachmarJames's Linkedin Profile

Companies and employers aroundJames-Kachmar-08_web the country seek to protect their intellectual property by, among other things, using non-compete provisions in employment agreements. Generally, these provisions are intended to prevent an employee from soliciting or doing business with a former employer’s customer/clients over a set period of time and/or in regard to a set geographical area. Under California law, and specifically Business and Professions Code section 16600, such provisions are unenforceable unless they fall within one of the statutory exceptions, i.e., primarily in connection with the sale of a business interest. For years, although California state courts would refuse to enforce such provisions under section 16600, federal courts in California sometimes applied a narrow court-created exception and allow such provisions to be enforced provided that they were narrowly tailored as to time and geographical area. In 2008, the California Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that such provisions were unenforceable under section 16600 and rejected the “narrowly restricted” exception used by federal courts. (See Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, LP, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008).)

In response to the Edwards decision, many California companies and employers began to omit such provisions from their new employment agreements or re-write them with specific language restricting an employee from using trade secret information to unfairly compete. However, other companies and employers left their old agreements untouched and in place thinking merely that they would not enforce them should the need arise. A recent court decision, Couch v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015), reveals the risk an employer or company faces in failing to update their older employment agreements to remove or revise such provisions.Continue Reading Hidden Pitfalls of Old Non-Compete Provisions

In general, any appeal from a civil action involving claims of patent infringement must be made to the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. A recent case from the Ninth Circuit, Amity Rubberized Pen Company v. Market Quest Group, illustrates this principle as well as demonstrating the practical measures an appellate court will take to help an appeal survive.

In Amity Rubberized Pen Co., Amity held a patent for a device that dispensed both toothpicks and tablets such as breath mints. In 2006, Amity sued Market Quest Group alleging infringement of its patent and brought various other federal and state law claims. Counsel for Amity withdrew from the case during trial and the court declared a mistrial and ordered that Amity substitute in new counsel. It also awarded Market Quest its attorney’s fees and costs for the mistrial and warned Amity that it would dismiss the case if it failed to pay. Amity did not pay the fees and in 2010, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Approximately three years later, in 2013, Amity filed a new lawsuit against Market Quest alleging similar claims as the previous action, including claims for patent infringement. Market Quest filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of res judicata, arguing that the present actin was barred by the dismissal with prejudice of similar claims three years earlier. The District Court agreed and dismissed the 2013 lawsuit. Amity appealed this dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals instead of to the Federal Circuit.Continue Reading Patent Infringement and Appellate Jurisdiction

Since his death in 1981, reggae superstar Bob Marley and his “image” continue to be broadly popular and command millions of dollars each year in merchandising revenue. His children own an entity called Fifth Six Hope Road, Music, Ltd. which was formed to acquire and exploit the assets, rights and commercial interests of their late father. In 1999, Hope Road granted Zion Rootswear, LLC, an exclusive license with regard to the use of Bob Marley’s image on various clothing and other merchandise.

After discovering that several companies had been selling t-shirts and other merchandise with the image of Bob Marley on them, Hope Road and Zion brought a lawsuit against them and included a claim for “false endorsement” under 15 USC §1125(a). (This article does not address the other claims pursued in this lawsuit.)

After trial, a jury found that the Defendants were liable under a false endorsement theory and awarded Plaintiffs almost $800,000 in damages plus their attorney’s fees of approximately $1.5 million. The Defendants appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit arguing that there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding against them and that Plaintiffs’ use of the false endorsement claim under 15 USC §1125 effectively created a federal “right of privacy,” which Congress had not intended.
Continue Reading Bob Marley and Federal False Endorsement Claims

A few years ago, I wrote a column addressing a case in which Pom Wonderful LLC sued Coca Cola Company in connection with the marketing of one of its pomegranate-blueberry juice products.  That case dealt with whether one of Pom Wonderful’s claims were barred by the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act with regard to labeling issues.

Ever protective of its brand, Pom Wonderful was recently successful before the Ninth Circuit in a trademark infringement case.  Pom Wonderful sued a competing pomegranate beverage maker doing business under the name Pur Beverages for trademark infringement.  After the district court denied Pom Wonderful’s motion for preliminary injunction barring the defendant from selling its competing beverage, Pom Wonderful appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Pom Wonderful owns numerous trademark registrations that make up its “Pom” brand family.  Pom Wonderful spends significant sums in marketing its products and policing against other companies’ uses that may infringe on its trademarks.   In connection with these efforts, Pom Wonderful discovered that Pur was selling a pomegranate flavored energy drink that it called “Pŏm”.  When Pur refused to change its marking, Pom Wonderful sued it for trademark infringement and moved for an injunction.Continue Reading Protecting Trademarks and the Likelihood of Confusion Factor

In March 2014, this column analyzed a decision by a Ninth Circuit panel in Garcia v. Google, Inc., in which the Court held that an actress, who believed she was appearing in a minor role in an Arabian adventure movie, could maintain a copyright infringement claim against the producers when they used the footage instead in an anti-Islamic film that resulted in her receiving death threats. As the prior column surmised, it appeared that “bad” (although entirely sympathetic) facts were making “bad” law.

This week, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it would rehear the matter en banc and ordered that its previous decision “not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.” It remains to be seen whether the entire Ninth Circuit will take a different position this time (and hold that the lower court properly denied the injunctive relief) or take the opportunity to emphasize just how limited the scope of its prior ruling was intended to reach.

Below is the original column analyzing the Ninth Ciruit’s original ruling in this case.

A Bit Part, A Fatwa and Copyright Infringement

Most law students learn early in law school the old maxim: “Bad facts make bad law.”  A recent Ninth Circuit case, Garcia v. Google, Inc., seems certain to test this proposition with its incredibly sympathetic facts.
Continue Reading 9th Circuit Agrees to En Banc Rehearing of Garcia v. Google, Inc.