caltradesecrets.com

Posts Tagged ‘Google’

Northern District Denies Preliminary Injunction Where Plaintiff’s Declaration Failed to Show Customer List Was the Result of Substantial Time, Expense and Effort on Part of Plaintiff

In Customer lists, Motion to Dismiss, Preemption, Preliminary Injunction on September 24, 2010 at 11:02 am
Cinderella's Step-Mother and Her Two Lovely Da...
Image by myoldpostcards via Flickr

The Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion to dismiss based on UTSA preemption and denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.  Kovesdy v. Kovesdy, C 10-02012 SBA, 2010 WL 3619826 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (slip op.). Plaintiff Eric Kovesdy (“Eric” or “Plaintiff”) sued his stepmother, Defendant Hedy Kovesdy (“Hedy”) for, inter alia, for misappropriation of trade secrets under California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426-3426.11, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Id. (1) Defendants moved to dismiss; and (2) Plaintiff moved for preliminary injunction.

Background

Peter Kovesdy (“Peter”) opened a professional tax practice known as Humex Income Tax (“Humex”).   Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Chief Judge Easterbrook Pointedly Denies Motion to Seal AT&T Mobility’s and Google’s Documents for Lack of Trade Secret Contention

In Motions to Seal on September 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm
A portrait of Frank Easterbrook
Image via Wikipedia

Chief Judge Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pointedly denied a motion to seal documents in In re Specht, 2010 WL 3494676, No. 10-2823, — F.3d —-, 2010 WL 3494676 (7th Cir. Sept. 8, 2010).  As part of its opposition to plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus in which plaintiff sought recusal of the district court judge.  Id. *1.  Google and AT & T Mobility were asked to respond to the petition, and asked the Third Circuit to seal their indemnity agreement and other documents.  The court refused: “If Google and AT & T wanted to keep the documents’ terms secret, they should not have proffered them in response to Specht’s motion.” Id. *4. Read the rest of this entry »

Northern District Grants Leave to Subpoena ISPs to Determine Identity of Anonymous Emailer of Trade Secret Information

In Discovery on September 3, 2010 at 8:07 am
Subpoena and Summons Extrordinary
Image by A Gude via Flickr

The Northern District granted a motion for leave to conduct third-party discovery on various internet service providers to determine the identity of an anonymous sender of trade secret information.  SolarBridge Technologies, Inc. v. Doe, No. C10-03769 LHK (HRL), 2010 WL 3419189 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010) (slip op). Read the rest of this entry »

America’s Most Secretive Companies

In Fun with Trade Secrets on August 30, 2010 at 7:40 am
SALT LAKE CITY - DECEMBER 8:  Former Blackwate...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The key element of a trade secret is, of course secrecy.  As defined in the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), a trade secret is means “information, . . . that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”

Some companies are better than others in maintaining secrecy.  Last Friday, 24/7 Wall St. ranked the companies that, in its view, are America’s most secretive:

1. Apple, Inc.

2. Xe Services LLC (f/k/a Blackwater Worldwide)

3. Renaissance Technologies

4. Google Inc. Read the rest of this entry »