As used in this title, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a)“Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.
(b)“Misappropriation” means:
(1)Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
(2)Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:
(A)Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
(B)At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was:
(i)Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
(ii)Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(iii)Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(C)Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
(c)“Person” means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(d)“Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
(1)Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being
generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(2)Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Notes of Decisions
Alta Devices, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 343 F. Supp. 3d 868 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 6× “, 2017 WL 5013363 , at *2, except that the DTSA applies only to misappropriations that occur or continue to occur on or after its date of enactment on May 11, 2016.”
WeRide Corp. v. Kun Huang, 379 F. Supp. 3d 834 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 5× “§ 1836 ) and California Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA") ( Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1 ). To commence discovery and to obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must first identify its alleged trade secrets with "reasonable particularity.”
Direct Tech., LLC v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 836 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 4× “” Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1 (d)(1). Rejecting EA’s cross-appeal, we further hold that the district court did not clearly err or otherwise abuse its discretion in denying attorneys’ fees for this claim.”
Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp., 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “DISCUSSION I Under the UTSA, a prima facie claim for misappropriation of trade secrets requires the plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) the plaintiff owned a trade secret, (2) the defendant acquired, disclosed, or used the plaintiff’s trade secret through improper means, and (3) the…”
Mattel, Inc. v. Mga Ent., Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
· cites it 5× “Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1 . The term “trade secret” is defined by the Act as: [I]nformation, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known…”
Pyro Spectaculars North, Inc. v. Souza, 861 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 5× “” Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.1(a). CUT-SA authorizes courts to enjoin “[ajctual or threatened misappropriation.”
Accuimage Diagnostics Corp. v. Terarecon, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 2d 941 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
· cites it 4× “See Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.1(b). Neither defendant challenges plaintiffs claim that Acculmage’s technology constitutes a “trade secret.”
Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Sys. Corp., 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 3426.1, subd. (d)(1).) The court found “no credible evidence” that the eight procedures at issue satisfied this test.”
In Re Providian Credit Card Cases, 30 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1449 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “” (Civ. Code, § 3426.1, subd. (d).) The courts of this state have traditionally treated the issue of whether information constitutes trade secret as a question of fact.”
Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 3426.1, subd. (d).) Schlage sought to enjoin use of a range of alleged trade secrets, identified in paragraph 1 of the temporary restraining order as: “a.”
SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (S.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 5× “Thus, there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether SkinMedica acquired rights to the three alleged trade secrets under the APA.”
PMC, Inc. v. Kadisha, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “(Civ. Code, § 3426.1; Vacco Industries, Inc.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.1(a) — 5 cases
Mattel, Inc. v. Mga Ent., Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
“Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1 . The term “trade secret” is defined by the Act as: [I]nformation, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.1(b) — 24 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.1(b)(2) — 2 cases
SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (S.D. Cal. 2012).
“Thus, there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether SkinMedica acquired rights to the three alleged trade secrets under the APA.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.1(b)(2)(B)(ii) — 2 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.1(b)(2)(B)(iii) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.1(d) — 50 cases
SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (S.D. Cal. 2012).
“Thus, there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether SkinMedica acquired rights to the three alleged trade secrets under the APA.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.1(d)(1) — 15 cases
Mattel, Inc. v. Mga Ent., Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
“Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1 . The term “trade secret” is defined by the Act as: [I]nformation, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.1(d)(2) — 4 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.