misappropriation claim in California

2023KV relies on Angelica Textile, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th 495 , which explains CUTSA “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.” (Id. at p. 506.) “ ‘[T]he determination of whether a claim is based on trade secret misappropriation is largely factual.’ (Angelica Textile, 220 Cal.App.4th at 6 “The terms ‘displacement,’ ‘preemption,’ and ‘supersession’ have all been used to describe CUTSA’s effect.” (Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc. (S.D.

2023KV relies on Angelica Textile, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th 495 , which explains CUTSA “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.” (Id. at p. 506.) “ ‘[T]he determination of whether a claim is based on trade secret misappropriation is largely factual.’ (Angelica Textile, 220 Cal.App.4th at 6 “The terms ‘displacement,’ ‘preemption,’ and ‘supersession’ have all been used to describe CUTSA’s effect.” (Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc. (S.D.

2013Code, § 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. ( Silvaco, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 241-242; Amron Int'l Diving Supply, Inc. v. Hydrolinx Diving Commun., Inc. (S.D.Cal., Oct. 21, 2011, No. 11-CV-1890-H) 2011 U.S. Dist.

2013Code, § 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. ( Silvaco, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 241-242; Amron Int'l Diving Supply, Inc. v. Hydrolinx Diving Commun., Inc. (S.D.Cal., Oct. 21, 2011, No. 11-CV-1890-H) 2011 U.S. Dist.

2021Nor is it significant in determining whether an element of the misappropriation claim is conduct in furtherance of constitutionally protected speech that the creative efforts in this case did not result in a public airing of the Penn-Bruckheimer pilot: “[C]onduct can assist and help to advance the exercise of the right of free speech, even if that assistance did not result in a completed exercise of free speech at the time the lawsuit is filed.” (Ojjeh v. Brown, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 1042; see San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego State University Research Foundation (2017) 13 Cal

2014(Loranger v. Jones (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 847, 858, fn. 9 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ].) In any event, substantial evidence in the record supports a finding the process described in the Canon patent is distinguishable from Altavion’s DST. 28 As the trial court pointed out, Altavion’s expert testified that KMSL’s patents could prevent Altavion from proceeding with sale or licensing of Altavion’s own DST. 29 Section 3288 provides, “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of the

2014(Loranger v. Jones (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 847, 858, fn. 9 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ].) In any event, substantial evidence in the record supports a finding the process described in the Canon patent is distinguishable from Altavion’s DST. 28 As the trial court pointed out, Altavion’s expert testified that KMSL’s patents could prevent Altavion from proceeding with sale or licensing of Altavion’s own DST. 29 Section 3288 provides, “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of the

2014However, that section relates to interest on “liquidated” damages claims, while “section 3288 permits discretionary prejudgment interest for unliquidated tort claims.” (Greater Westchester, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 102 ; see Newby v. Vroman (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 283, 286-287 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 ] [characterizing as “inapposite” cases decided under § 3287 “which hold that prejudgment interest is only appropriate if a plaintiff’s damages are either known or knowable”]; Stein v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 565, 572 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 907 ] [in contrast to § 3287, § 3288 “allows inter

2014(Loranger v. Jones (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 847, 858, fn. 9 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ].) In any event, substantial evidence in the record supports a finding the process described in the Canon patent is distinguishable from Altavion’s DST. 28 As the trial court pointed out, Altavion’s expert testified that KMSL’s patents could prevent Altavion from proceeding with sale or licensing of Altavion’s own DST. 29 Section 3288 provides, “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of the

2014(Loranger v. Jones (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 847, 858, fn. 9 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ].) In any event, substantial evidence in the record supports a finding the process described in the Canon patent is distinguishable from Altavion’s DST. 28 As the trial court pointed out, Altavion’s expert testified that KMSL’s patents could prevent Altavion from proceeding with sale or licensing of Altavion’s own DST. 29 Section 3288 provides, “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of the

2014However, that section relates to interest on “liquidated” damages claims, while “section 3288 permits discretionary prejudgment interest for unliquidated tort claims.” (Greater Westchester, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 102 ; see Newby v. Vroman (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 283, 286-287 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 ] [characterizing as “inapposite” cases decided under § 3287 “which hold that prejudgment interest is only appropriate if a plaintiff’s damages are either known or knowable”]; Stein v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 565, 572 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 907 ] [in contrast to § 3287, § 3288 “allows inter

2014However, that section relates to interest on “liquidated” damages claims, while “section 3288 permits discretionary prejudgment interest for unliquidated tort claims.” (Greater Westchester, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 102 ; see Newby v. Vroman (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 283, 286-287 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 ] [characterizing as “inapposite” cases decided under § 3287 “which hold that prejudgment interest is only appropriate if a plaintiff’s damages are either known or knowable”]; Stein v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 565, 572 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 907 ] [in contrast to § 3287, § 3288 “allows inter

2014However, that section relates to interest on “liquidated” damages claims, while “section 3288 permits discretionary prejudgment interest for unliquidated tort claims.” (Greater Westchester, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 102 ; see Newby v. Vroman (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 283, 286-287 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 ] [characterizing as “inapposite” cases decided under § 3287 “which hold that prejudgment interest is only appropriate if a plaintiff’s damages are either known or knowable”]; Stein v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 565, 572 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 907 ] [in contrast to § 3287, § 3288 “allows inter

2014However, that section relates to interest on “liquidated” damages claims, while “section 3288 permits discretionary prejudgment interest for unliquidated tort claims.” (Greater Westchester, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 102 ; see Newby v. Vroman (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 283, 286-287 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 ] [characterizing as “inapposite” cases decided under § 3287 “which hold that prejudgment interest is only appropriate if a plaintiff’s damages are either known or knowable”]; Stein v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 565, 572 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 907 ] [in contrast to § 3287, § 3288 “allows inter

2013Multimedia, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 954 ; accord, Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 210, 236 (Silvaco), disapproved on other grounds in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 337 [“We thus reaffirm that CUTSA provides the exclusive civil remedy for conduct falling within its terms, so as to supersede other civil remedies ‘based upon misappropriation of a trade secret’ [Citation] ”].) 27 bottom, trade secret protection is itself but a branch of unfair competition law.’ [Citation.] “California’s statutory unfair competition law permits claims for ‘un

2005The rule is that a trial court may not grant a defendant’s motion for nonsuit if plaintiff’s evidence would support a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor.” (Campbell v. General Motors Corp. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 112, 117-118 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 891 , 649 P.2d 224 ].) “In determining whether plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient, the court may not weigh the evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses.

2005The rule is that a trial court may not grant a defendant’s motion for nonsuit if plaintiff’s evidence would support a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor.” (Campbell v. General Motors Corp. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 112, 117-118 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 891 , 649 P.2d 224 ].) “In determining whether plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient, the court may not weigh the evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses.