In plaintiff’s action under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act claiming that the defendants misappropriated certain trade secrets belonging to plaintiff, trial court’s dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had forfeited its standing to maintain an action for misappropriation when it had gone through bankruptcy proceedings shortly after filing the complaint is reversed where: 1) a current ownership requirement is not supported by general principles of property or tort law; 2) existing authority imposes no “current ownership requirement” on trade secret plaintiffs; 3) adoption of a current ownership requirement in trade secrets cases is not warranted by analogy to trademark, patent, or copyright law; and 4) no policy concern preponderates in favor of current ownership requirement.
Read Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. H034441 [HTML]
Read Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. H034441 [PDF]
Appellate Information
Filed December 29, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Rushing
CounselFor Appellant: Trepel Law Firm, Anthony J. Trepel, McGrane Greenfield, William McGrane, Christopher Sullivan, Maureen Harrington, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robin Meadow, Marc J. Poster, Alana H. Rotter.
For Appellee: Latham & Watkins, Steven M. Bauer, Charles Crompton, James K. Lynch, Cooke Kobrick & Wu, Steven S. Wu, Christopher C. Cooke, Jeffrey W. Kobrick
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
