starwood hilton ‘economic espionage act’ eea ‘trade secrets’
Continue Reading G-Men’s Interest in Hilton’s Alleged Trade Secret Theft Highlights Importance of Trade Secret Policies
Threatened Misappropriation of Trade Secrets vs. Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine–When Is the Line Crossed?
UTSA ‘Trade Secrets’ ‘disclosure doctrine’
Continue Reading Threatened Misappropriation of Trade Secrets vs. Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine–When Is the Line Crossed?
Obvious, Within General Knowledge, and … Trade Secret? An Update To The Disclosure Requirement of CCP 2019.210.
By California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 requires a plaintiff in a trade secret case to identify “with reasonable particularity” the trade secret it claims was misappropriated before commencing discovery. This usually leads to the first dispute in such a lawsuit – whether the plaintiff has adequately identified the trade secret. In a recent case, Brescia v. Angelin, (2nd Dist. Mar. 17, 2009) — Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2009 WL 684744, the California Court of Appeal provided additional guidance for settling this dispute.
The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Civil Code Section 3426 et seq., creates statutory protection for a company’s trade secrets. The CUTSA defines a trade secret as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that (1) derives independent economic value from not being generally known, and (2) is protected from disclosure by reasonable means. The classic example of trade secret is the formula for Coke or Pepsi. Continue Reading Obvious, Within General Knowledge, and … Trade Secret? An Update To The Disclosure Requirement of CCP 2019.210.
Trade Secrets and Preemption
By Although several federal courts in California have previously considered the issue of preemption in trade secret misappropriation cases, the Sixth Appellate District, in K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. ___ Cal.Rptr. 3d ____ (6th Dist. Mar. 3, 2009), became one of the first (if not the first) California state court to hold that the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) preempts state common law claims based on the same facts as a misappropriation claim. This ruling could have a significant impact on how trade secret misappropriation cases are both pled and litigated in California.
Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP The Death of Non-Competition Agreements?
By James Kachmar
Last summer, I wrote about the appellate court’s decision in VL Systems, Inc. v. Unison, Inc. in which the Court struck down a “no hire” provision contained in a consulting agreement as violating section 16600 of California’s Business and Professions Code. Section 16600 provides “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent void.” This summer, the California Supreme Court in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen used the same reasoning to strike down a “non-competition” provision in an employment agreement.Continue Reading Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP The Death of Non-Competition Agreements?