Ninth Circuit

Subscribe to Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit recently issued an opinion that serves as a reminder of the importance of developing robust affirmative evidence of damages suffered as a consequence of trade secret misappropriation, including the causation of those damages. In Joshua David Mellberg LLC v. Will, the plaintiffs filed an action against its former employees and their new company for misappropriation of trade secrets and unjust enrichment. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reminds Plaintiffs That Trade Secret Misappropriation Damages Without Adequate Proof of Causation Are Not Enough

On December 16, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held for the first time in Attia v. Google LLC that a misappropriation claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) may be brought for a misappropriation that started prior to the enactment of the DTSA as long as the claim also arises from post-enactment misappropriation or from the continued use of the same trade secret.  The decision further expands the reach of the DTSA and provides a blueprint for other courts to rule along the same lines.

The case, which was originally filed in the Northern District of California in 2014, was brought by an architect and his firm against Google under the DTSA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and state trade secret and contract laws for alleged misappropriation of the plaintiff’s “Engineered Architecture” technology.[1] Although the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the DTSA claim on the grounds that  the architect lacked standing under the DTSA because Google’s 2012 patent applications based on the “Engineered Architecture” technology placed the contested information in the public domain, extinguishing any trade secret claims over it,[2] the Ninth Circuit’s ruling was significant for other reasons, namely the expansion of the DTSA’s potential applicability.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Allows Defend Trade Secrets Act Claims for Conduct Predating the DTSA

Under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and many other states’ trade secret acts, a plaintiff must identify its alleged trade secrets as a prerequisite to conducting discovery.  Cal. Civ. Code § 2019.210.  The Ninth Circuit recently held that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) also includes this requirement to identify alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity.  The Ninth Circuit was considering whether the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had abused its discretion in granting summary judgment for a defendant on CUTSA and DTSA claims by finding that the plaintiff had not identified its trade secrets with sufficient particularity without any discovery. (Spoiler alert: It did.)
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Opens the Door to Modifying a Trade Secret Identification After Discovery

Last week, the Ninth Circuit  issued an important decision for employers in United States v. Christensen, No. 08-50531, 2015 WL 5010591, at *14 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015). In that case, the Court of Appeals held that employees who misuse their access to their employers’ computer systems can be held criminally liable under California Penal Code § 502(c)(2). While many lower-court decisions within the Ninth Circuit had questioned the scope of Section 502(c) and certain of its sub-parts, and some considered it to be primarily an “anti-hacking statute,” the Ninth Circuit’s decision makes clear that § 502(c) applies even to an employee who accesses a database or system with a valid password, but proceeds to take, copy, or use data without permission to do so.
Continue Reading Access Denied — Christensen Sets the Standard for Violations of Penal Code § 502(c)

[via Flickr user phalinn]
[via Flickr user phalinn]

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit rejected a “will not reapply” clause in a settlement agreement under Business & Professions Code Section 16600, the California state statute that makes most non-compete provisions unenforceable. It is unclear if the holding is limited to the particular facts or if all “will not reapply” clauses are at risk. Such clauses are typical features of settlement agreements arising from employment-based disputes. In settling such disputes, the employer does not want to risk another lawsuit on the same grounds brought by the same person in connection with another job. The employer will bargain for the “will not reapply” clause, giving the employer a contractual basis to reject future employment for that same person, and thus avoiding the risk of another suit. The Ninth Circuit decided, in the case at bar, that Section 16600 precludes such a provision as unenforceable restraint of a substantial character on the ability to work within a particular field or industry.
Continue Reading “Will Not Reapply” Clauses on Life Support in California?

In a blow to victims of data theft, the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Nosal held that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) was not an available remedy where the alleged thief had authorized access to the computer system from which data was stolen. The Northern District Court of California’s recent decision in…