Greenfield Draa & Harrington

Greenfield Draa & Harrington Blogs

Blog Authors

Latest from Greenfield Draa & Harrington

“No,” says the court in BladeRoom v Facebook et al.  “Yes,” says the court in O2 Micro v. Monolithic Power. Can these different results be reconciled and can a rule for apportioning damages between trade secrets be derived from the inquiry? Yes and yes. BladeRoom v. Facebook et al. BladeRoom is ND of California case in which plaintiff BladeRoom asserted misappropriation of trade secrets under California’s version of the Uniform Trade Secret Act (CUTSA). The…
Yesterday evening, the district court in the trade secret litigation Waymo v. Uber et al [3:17-cv-939-WHA] issued revised jury instructions on trade secret misappropriation and proposed special verdict form (Dkt. #2499). The revised instructions retain the requirement in earlier drafts of the instructions that Waymo must show Uber actually used the improperly acquired trade secrets in order to recover unjust enrichment damages. With due respect to the very hard work of the court and the…
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), on its face, creates a private action in district court for misappropriation occurring abroad.  Filing a DTSA claim in district court may in certain circumstances provide the best remedy for foreign trade secret theft over other alternatives such as filing a complaint with the International Trade Commission.  But over a year-and-a- half after the enactment of the DTSA, are there any decisions applying the DTSA to foreign trade secret…
The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 decision in TC Heartland effectively shifts a significant number of patent litigations out of courts previously deemed acceptable to courts in other venues in which the defendant corporation is incorporated.  In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court relied upon its 1957 decision in Fourco Glass interpreting the patent venue statute. Defendant corporations in Cobalt Boats v. Sea Ray Boats and Brunswick, a patent case scheduled to start trial in…
Dave Bohrer’s recent post Extending US Trade Secret Law to Reach IP Theft in China discusses what to do when your company’s Chinese joint venture makes off with your trade secrets in China.  The post suggests it may be possible to bring an action in US court extending either federal or state trade secret law extraterritorially to reach the misconduct in China. In response to Dave’s post, I suggest that there is another, complementary alternative…
Engineers from your China subsidiary just joined a competing company which has begun using your trade secrets.  Can you sue in the US and avoid the uncertainty and expense of seeking relief in a Chinese court?  The answer is that both federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) of 2016 and California’s version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), under the right circumstances, may be extended extraterritorially to reach misappropriation outside of the US. Perhaps…
Alarms sounded when John Absmeier, technical director of Delphi Automotive’s Silicon Valley autonomous vehicle project, announced he was leaving to join Samsung’s Silicon Valley innovation center where he would lead a self-driving car technology team.  They grew louder upon Delphi’s determination that Absmeier downloaded hundreds of thousands of company files and folders onto personal devices prior to giving notice, deleted tens of thousands of files of unknown subject matter on or before giving notice, and…
The question is whether it is possible to get a court to enter partial summary judgment before trial on some but not all of the trade secrets that the defendant is accused of stealing. As discussed in the Sept 28 post, the answer is that this may not be possible if the lawsuit is filed in California state court. But if the trade secret lawsuit is filed in federal court, the answer is yes.…
Not necessarily in California. The answer depends upon the unsettled issue whether California summary adjudication rules allow courts to dismiss some but not all of the asserted trade secrets before trial. Trade secret claims brought by a technology company typically allege theft of not one but many trade secrets.  The law recognizes as separate and specific trade secrets not just a particular technology, but also the underlying research, study, tests or investigation relating to this…
The new Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) became law on May 11, 2016 and applies to any misappropriation that occurs on or after that date. Although the DTSA creates a federal, civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation, it does not preempt state law.  This is going to encourage serious forum shopping, including, among other things, over the right to jury trial. The federal law cedes to the jury the determination of all possible monetary damages…