caltradesecrets.com

Posts Tagged ‘JooJoo’

Northern District Applies California Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210 to Federal “Misappropriation of Business Ideas” Case

In C.C.P. § 2019.210 Pre-Discovery Disclosure, Common Law Misappropriation, Discovery, Patricia V. Trumbull on October 11, 2010 at 8:20 am
notepad
Image by john yaya via Flickr

In a federal case, the Northern District of California applied a California rule of procedure, California Code of Civil Procedure 2019.210, in ordering a plaintiff to identify its allegedly misappropriated business ideas.  Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage Pte Ltd., No. C-09-05812 RS (PVT), 2010 WL 3931100 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2010) (slip op.).  But after the court dismissed without leave to amend plaintiff’s tort claim for “misappropriation of business ideas”, the court rejected defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the disclosure as moot.  Id. *2

Background

Defendant Fusion Garage PTE, Ltd. brought a renewed motion for a protective order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 and Rule 26(c), contending that Plaintiffs Interserve, Inc., doing business as TechCrunch and CrunchPad. failed identify their misappropriated business ideas with any specificity.  Id. *1.  Plaintiffs alleged claims for (1) misappropriation of business ideas; (2) false advertising; (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) fraud.

Defendant asserted the following deficiencies with plaintiffs disclosure: Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Northern District Holds No Cause of Action Exists for Misappropriation of “Ideas”

In Motion to Dismiss, Preliminary Injunction on August 28, 2010 at 6:30 am
Luminous Idea
Image by Tiago Daniel via Flickr

The Northern District held that no cause of action exists for “misappropriation of business ideas”.  Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage PTE. Ltd., No. C 09-5812 RS (PVT), 2010 WL 3339520 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010) (slip op.).

Plaintiff Interserve, Inc. and Fusion Garage collaborated in an attempt to bring to market a tablet computer, which they intended to call the “CrunchPad.”  Id. *1.  Shortly before the parties had planned to announce that the product would soon be released, defendant Fusion Garage advised plaintiffs that it would proceed on its own, and market a tablet computer under the name “joojoo” instead. Id. Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging that they are co-owners of the joojoo.  Id. They sought a preliminary injunction requiring defendant to sequester all proceeds it obtains from selling the product. Id. Defendant opposed the motion for preliminary injunction, and moved to dismiss the complaint, including a claim for misappropriation of “business ideas”. Id. Read the rest of this entry »