Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS / PART 1. RELIEF / TITLE 5. UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 3426.4 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party. Recoverable costs hereunder shall include a reasonable sum to cover the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the prevailing party.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, 400 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, 400 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2017). · cites it 2× “The case proceeded to a bench trial, after which the trial court denied FLIR's and Indigo's requests for relief.”
Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Sys. Corp., 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “) In addition, Civil Code section 3426.4 provides that when a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is “made in bad faith,” the court “may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.”
Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc., 339 F. Supp. 3d 959 (E.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 2× “California Civil Code section 3426.4 permits attorney's fees and costs "[i]f a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith.”
Direct Tech., LLC v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 836 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2016). “Attorneys’ fees EA argues that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees on DT’s trade secrets claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.4 , which authorizes attorneys’ fees when “a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith.”
Vacco Indus., Inc. v. Van Den Berg, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2877 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “10 Civil Code section 3426.4 provides: “If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing…”
Khavarian Enter., Inc. v. Commline, Inc., 216 Cal. App. 4th 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “[cj[] [Vision] shall apply to the Court by way of a motion for such attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the Action pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.4 , and for costs incurred in the Action pursuant to Memorandum of Costs under Cal.”
Smith v. Selma Cmty. Hosp., 188 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “3d 307 ] [Civ. Code, § 3426.4 refers to a claim of misappropriation “made in bad faith”].”
02 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2005). “See Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.4 (“the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees”) (emphasis added).”
Cytodyn of New Mexico, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharm., Inc., 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 600 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “They asserted a statutory right to recover attorney fees under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civil Code section 3426.4, which permits an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs if a claim of misappropriation of trade secrets is made in bad faith.”
Mattel, Inc. v. Mga Ent., Inc., 801 F. Supp. 2d 950 (C.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 2× “Cal.Civ.Code § 3426.4. Those costs include “a reasonable sum to cover the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party.”
Everett Lopez v. Emergency Serv. Restoration, 378 F. App'x 610 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “1; and, finding that this conduct was “willful and malicious,” the court awarded ESR attorney’s fees pursuant to California Civil Code § 3426.4. The state court found that Lopez improperly targeted ESR’s customers after acquiring ESR’s customer list through several former ESR…”
Degussa Admixtures, Inc. v. Burnett, 471 F. Supp. 2d 848 (W.D. Mich. 2007). “Law II § 11-1204(1), and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.4, contain identical language to the MUTSA.”
Show all 66 citing 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.