Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pepsico, Inc., a Corporation v. William E. Redmond, Jr., and the Quaker Oats Company, a Corporationgreen2 sentences2015In the trial court Maxim suggested that Cypress’s claims in this regard implicitly rested on the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, under which some jurisdictions will permit a plaintiff to substantiate a trade secret claim against a departing employee “ ‘by demonstrating that [the] defendant’s new employment will inevitably lead him to rely on the plaintiff’s trade secrets.’ ” (Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1458 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 ] (Whyte), quoting PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond (7th Cir. 1995) 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 .) This doctrine, as Maxim pointed out, has been flatly r 2009None of these allegations were proven. 3 “Under the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, ‘a plaintiff may prove a claim of trade secret misappropriation by demonstrating that defendant’s new employment will inevitably lead him to rely on the plaintiff’s trade secrets.’ (PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond (7th Cir. 1995) 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 (PepsiCo).) The inevitable disclosure doctrine results in an injunction prohibiting employment, not just use of trade secrets. | 2 | 3 |
Central Valley General Hospital v. Smithgreen2 sentences2022(See Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 525 [distinguishing threatened misappropriation from inevitable innocent disclosure].) Multiversal argues the exclusion order was fatally defective because it contained no findings supporting Demetriades’s exclusion. 2022(See Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 525 [distinguishing threatened misappropriation from inevitable innocent disclosure].) Multiversal argues the exclusion order was fatally defective because it contained no findings supporting Demetriades’s exclusion. | 2 | 2 |
Whyte v. Schlage Lock Companygreen2 sentences2015In the trial court Maxim suggested that Cypress’s claims in this regard implicitly rested on the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, under which some jurisdictions will permit a plaintiff to substantiate a trade secret claim against a departing employee “ ‘by demonstrating that [the] defendant’s new employment will inevitably lead him to rely on the plaintiff’s trade secrets.’ ” (Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1458 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 ] (Whyte), quoting PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond (7th Cir. 1995) 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 .) This doctrine, as Maxim pointed out, has been flatly r 2015In the trial court Maxim suggested that Cypress’s claims in this regard implicitly rested on the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, under which some jurisdictions will permit a plaintiff to substantiate a trade secret claim against a departing employee “ ‘by demonstrating that [the] defendant’s new employment will inevitably lead him to rely on the plaintiff’s trade secrets.’ ” (Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1458 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 ] (Whyte), quoting PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond (7th Cir. 1995) 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 .) This doctrine, as Maxim pointed out, has been flatly r | 2 | 2 |
Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc.green2 sentences2008(See Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., supra, 148 F.Supp.2d at p. 1335 [some courts apply the inevitable disclosure doctrine “to situations where there has been no actual or threatened misappropriation”].) Consequently, we do not equate the rejection of the inevitable disclosure doctrine with a rejection of the principle that threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. 2002(Globespan, Inc. v. O’Neill, supra, 151 F.Supp.2d 1229 ; Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc. (S.D.Fla. 2001) 148 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1337 ; PSC, Inc. v. Reiss (W.D.N.Y. 2000) 111 F.Supp.2d 252 ; Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., supra, 72 F.Supp.2d at p. 1120 ; EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 71 F.Supp.2d 299 ; Government Technology Services, Inc. v. IntelliSys Technology Corp. (1999) 51 Va.Cir. 55 [ 1999 WL 1499548 ].) The decisions rejecting the inevitable disclosure doctrine correctly balance competing public policies of employee mobility and protection of t | 1 | 2 |
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.green1 sentence2021(See Cypress Semiconductor, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 268 [theory based on inevitable disclosure doctrine did not state grounds for relief under California law].) 19 we treat the contentions as waived. | 1 | 1 |
PSC, INC. v. Reissgreen2 sentences2002(Globespan, Inc. v. O’Neill, supra, 151 F.Supp.2d 1229 ; Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc. (S.D.Fla. 2001) 148 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1337 ; PSC, Inc. v. Reiss (W.D.N.Y. 2000) 111 F.Supp.2d 252 ; Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., supra, 72 F.Supp.2d at p. 1120 ; EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 71 F.Supp.2d 299 ; Government Technology Services, Inc. v. IntelliSys Technology Corp. (1999) 51 Va.Cir. 55 [ 1999 WL 1499548 ].) The decisions rejecting the inevitable disclosure doctrine correctly balance competing public policies of employee mobility and protection of t 2002We agree the doctrine of inevitable disclosure “creates a de facto covenant not to compete” and “runs[s] counter to the strong public policy in California favoring employee mobility.” (Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., supra, 72 F.Supp.2d at p. 1120 ; accord, Globespan, Inc. v. O’Neill, supra, 151 F.Supp.2d at p. 1234 ; PSC, Inc. v. Reiss, supra, 111 F.Supp.2d at p. 256 [inevitable disclosure doctrine binds employee to implied-in-fact restrictive covenant that “runs counter to New York’s strong public policy against such agreements”].) The policy favoring employee mobility does not | 1 | 1 |
Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2002(Globespan, Inc. v. O’Neill (C.D.Cal. 2001) 151 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1235 (order by Baird, J.) [“The Central District of California has considered and rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine”]; Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1999) 72 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1120 (order by Alsup, J.) [“California trade-secrets law does not recognize the theory of inevitable disclosure”]; but see Note, Intellectual Slavery?: The Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosure of Trade Secrets (1996) 26 Golden Gate U. L.Rev. 717, 719 [“Because California has adopted the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] and because Pe 2002(Globespan, Inc. v. O’Neill, supra, 151 F.Supp.2d 1229 ; Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc. (S.D.Fla. 2001) 148 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1337 ; PSC, Inc. v. Reiss (W.D.N.Y. 2000) 111 F.Supp.2d 252 ; Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., supra, 72 F.Supp.2d at p. 1120 ; EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 71 F.Supp.2d 299 ; Government Technology Services, Inc. v. IntelliSys Technology Corp. (1999) 51 Va.Cir. 55 [ 1999 WL 1499548 ].) The decisions rejecting the inevitable disclosure doctrine correctly balance competing public policies of employee mobility and protection of t | 1 | 1 |
Lexis-Nexis v. Beergreen1 sentence2002(E.g., RKI, Inc. v. Grimes (N.D.Ill. 2001) 177 F.Supp.2d 859 ; H & R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc. v. Enchura (W.D.Mo. 2000) 122 F.Supp.2d 1067 ; Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Michelson (S.D.Tex. 1999) 51 F.Supp.2d 773 , revd. without reported opn. (5th Cir. 1999) 182 F.3d 915 ; Lexis-Nexis v. Beer (D.Minn. 1999) 41 F.Supp.2d 950, 959 [dictum because no finding of trade secrets]; Novell Inc. v. Timpanogos Research Group Inc. (D. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Meesegreen2 sentences2002(King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1227 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 829 , 743 P.2d 889 ]; Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 785 .) Disposition The order denying Schlage’s application for a preliminary injunction and granting Whyte’s motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order is affirmed. 2002(King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1227 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 829 , 743 P.2d 889 ]; Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 785 .) Disposition The order denying Schlage’s application for a preliminary injunction and granting Whyte’s motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order is affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
Globespan, Inc. v. O'NEILLgreen2 sentences2002(Globespan, Inc. v. O’Neill (C.D.Cal. 2001) 151 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1235 (order by Baird, J.) [“The Central District of California has considered and rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine”]; Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1999) 72 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1120 (order by Alsup, J.) [“California trade-secrets law does not recognize the theory of inevitable disclosure”]; but see Note, Intellectual Slavery?: The Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosure of Trade Secrets (1996) 26 Golden Gate U. L.Rev. 717, 719 [“Because California has adopted the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] and because Pe 2002(Globespan, Inc. v. O’Neill, supra, 151 F.Supp.2d 1229 ; Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc. (S.D.Fla. 2001) 148 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1337 ; PSC, Inc. v. Reiss (W.D.N.Y. 2000) 111 F.Supp.2d 252 ; Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., supra, 72 F.Supp.2d at p. 1120 ; EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 71 F.Supp.2d 299 ; Government Technology Services, Inc. v. IntelliSys Technology Corp. (1999) 51 Va.Cir. 55 [ 1999 WL 1499548 ].) The decisions rejecting the inevitable disclosure doctrine correctly balance competing public policies of employee mobility and protection of t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish
green
1 sentence2021(FLIR, at p. 1278.) The record also supports an implied finding that plaintiff’s motive in bringing and maintaining the action was for the improper purpose of pursuing an “inevitable disclosure” theory against defendant. ( FLIR, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1278–1280 [affirming bad faith finding based on plaintiff’s reliance on inevitable disclosure theory].) The inevitable disclosure doctrine, by which a plaintiff may prove a claim of trade secret misappropriation by demonstrating that a defendant’s new employment will several declarations from board members and community managers for the ho | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Interbake Foods, L.L.C. v. Tomasiello
green
2 sentences2008(E.g., Interbake Foods, L.L.C. v. Tomasiello (N.D.Iowa 2006) 461 F.Supp.2d 943 .) In that case, Chief District Court Judge Bennett concluded “that the inevitable disclosure doctrine is just one way of showing a threatened disclosure in cases where additional evidence showing the existence of a substantial threat of impending injury is unavailable to the movant.” (Id. at p. 973.) If the inevitable disclosure doctrine is regarded merely as one way of showing a threatened misappropriation, it does not follow logically that the rejection of the doctrine means all ways of establishing threatened mi 2008(E.g., Interbake Foods, L.L.C. v. Tomasiello (N.D.Iowa 2006) 461 F.Supp.2d 943 .) In that case, Chief District Court Judge Bennett concluded “that the inevitable disclosure doctrine is just one way of showing a threatened disclosure in cases where additional evidence showing the existence of a substantial threat of impending injury is unavailable to the movant.” (Id. at p. 973.) If the inevitable disclosure doctrine is regarded merely as one way of showing a threatened misappropriation, it does not follow logically that the rejection of the doctrine means all ways of establishing threatened mi | 1 | 2008–2008 |
RKI, Inc. v. Grimes
green
1 sentence2002(E.g., RKI, Inc. v. Grimes (N.D.Ill. 2001) 177 F.Supp.2d 859 ; H & R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc. v. Enchura (W.D.Mo. 2000) 122 F.Supp.2d 1067 ; Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Michelson (S.D.Tex. 1999) 51 F.Supp.2d 773 , revd. without reported opn. (5th Cir. 1999) 182 F.3d 915 ; Lexis-Nexis v. Beer (D.Minn. 1999) 41 F.Supp.2d 950, 959 [dictum because no finding of trade secrets]; Novell Inc. v. Timpanogos Research Group Inc. (D. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
H & R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc. v. Enchura
green
1 sentence2002(E.g., RKI, Inc. v. Grimes (N.D.Ill. 2001) 177 F.Supp.2d 859 ; H & R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc. v. Enchura (W.D.Mo. 2000) 122 F.Supp.2d 1067 ; Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Michelson (S.D.Tex. 1999) 51 F.Supp.2d 773 , revd. without reported opn. (5th Cir. 1999) 182 F.3d 915 ; Lexis-Nexis v. Beer (D.Minn. 1999) 41 F.Supp.2d 950, 959 [dictum because no finding of trade secrets]; Novell Inc. v. Timpanogos Research Group Inc. (D. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hart v. Cult Awareness Network
green
1 sentence2002(King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1227 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 829 , 743 P.2d 889 ]; Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 785 .) Disposition The order denying Schlage’s application for a preliminary injunction and granting Whyte’s motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order is affirmed. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Michelson
green
1 sentence2002(E.g., RKI, Inc. v. Grimes (N.D.Ill. 2001) 177 F.Supp.2d 859 ; H & R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc. v. Enchura (W.D.Mo. 2000) 122 F.Supp.2d 1067 ; Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Michelson (S.D.Tex. 1999) 51 F.Supp.2d 773 , revd. without reported opn. (5th Cir. 1999) 182 F.3d 915 ; Lexis-Nexis v. Beer (D.Minn. 1999) 41 F.Supp.2d 950, 959 [dictum because no finding of trade secrets]; Novell Inc. v. Timpanogos Research Group Inc. (D. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack
green
2 sentences2002(Globespan, Inc. v. O’Neill, supra, 151 F.Supp.2d 1229 ; Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc. (S.D.Fla. 2001) 148 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1337 ; PSC, Inc. v. Reiss (W.D.N.Y. 2000) 111 F.Supp.2d 252 ; Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., supra, 72 F.Supp.2d at p. 1120 ; EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 71 F.Supp.2d 299 ; Government Technology Services, Inc. v. IntelliSys Technology Corp. (1999) 51 Va.Cir. 55 [ 1999 WL 1499548 ].) The decisions rejecting the inevitable disclosure doctrine correctly balance competing public policies of employee mobility and protection of t 2002When, as here, a confidentiality agreement is in place, the inevitable disclosure doctrine “in effect convert[s] the confidentiality agreement into such a covenant [not to compete].” (PSC, Inc. v. Reiss, supra, 111 F.Supp.2d at p. 257 .) Or, as another federal court put it, “a court should not allow a plaintiff to use inevitable disclosure as an after-the-fact noncompete agreement to enjoin an employee from working for the employer of his or her choice.” (Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., supra, 148 F.Supp.2d at p. 1337 ; see also Matheson, Employee Beware: The Irreparable Da | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.