(a)Except as otherwise expressly provided, this title does not supersede any statute relating to misappropriation of a trade secret, or any statute otherwise regulating trade secrets.
(b)This title does not affect (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, (2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or (3) criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.
(c)This title does not affect the disclosure of a record by a state or local agency under the California Public Records
Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the
Government Code). Any determination as to whether the disclosure of a record under the California Public Records Act constitutes a misappropriation of a trade secret and the rights and remedies with respect thereto shall be made pursuant to the law in effect before the operative date of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Deerpoint Grp., Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC, 345 F. Supp. 3d 1207 (E.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 7× “Fourth, the Court cannot agree that a defendant like MBS (or Mahoney) would essentially obtain immunity for all future uses or disclosures of trade secrets.”
Mattel, Inc. v. Mga Ent., Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
· cites it 3× “” Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.7(b). The Act’s language “implicitly preempts alternative civil remedies based on trade secret misappropriation.”
Angelica Textile Servs. Inc. v. Park, 36 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1522 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 3426.7, subd. (b)(1).) Moreover, UTSA does not displace noncontract claims that, although related to a trade secret misappropriation, are independent and based on facts distinct from the facts that support the misappropriation claim.”
Integral Dev. Corp. v. Viral Tolat, 675 F. App'x 700 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Because Integral has at least raised a question of material fact as to all necessary elements of a CUTSA claim (based on the alleged misappropriation of its source code), we reverse the district court’s summary judgment ruling on this claim and remand.”
Digit. Envoy, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.7(b). It suggests, therefore, that there would be no need for inclusion of this provision in California’s statutory scheme unless the UTSA preempted other claims based on misappropriation.”
Waymo LLC v. Uber Tech., Inc., 256 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
“Additional allegations from the amended complaint germane to the instant motion are discussed below in the context of the parties’ arguments.”
Callaway Golf Co. v. Dunlop Slazenger Grp. Americas, Inc., 295 F. Supp. 2d 430 (D. Del. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.7(a). Paragraph (b) states that CUTSA “does not affect (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, (2) other civil- remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or (3) criminal remedies,…”
Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 3d 1127 (E.D. Cal. 2017).
“(b) This title does not affect (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, (2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or (3) criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a…”
Accuimage Diagnostics Corp. v. Terarecon, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 2d 941 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
“” Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.7 . The provision also states that contractual remedies, whether based on misappropriation of a trade secret or not, are not affected by the title nor are other civil remedias [e.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.7(a) — 2 cases
Callaway Golf Co. v. Dunlop Slazenger Grp. Americas, Inc., 295 F. Supp. 2d 430 (D. Del. 2003).
“” Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.7(a). Paragraph (b) states that CUTSA “does not affect (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, (2) other civil- remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or (3) criminal remedies,…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.7(b) — 12 cases
Mattel, Inc. v. Mga Ent., Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
“” Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.7(b). The Act’s language “implicitly preempts alternative civil remedies based on trade secret misappropriation.”
Digit. Envoy, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
“Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.7(b). It suggests, therefore, that there would be no need for inclusion of this provision in California’s statutory scheme unless the UTSA preempted other claims based on misappropriation.”
Callaway Golf Co. v. Dunlop Slazenger Grp. Americas, Inc., 295 F. Supp. 2d 430 (D. Del. 2003).
“” Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.7(a). Paragraph (b) states that CUTSA “does not affect (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, (2) other civil- remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or (3) criminal remedies,…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3426.7(b)(2) — 2 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.