Cases: Trade Secrets

Trade Secrets: Texas District Court Judge Issues $15.3 Million Attorney’s Fees Award To Prevailing Plaintiff In A Defend Trade Secrets Act Case

Cases: Trade Secrets

Plaintiff Won Compensatory Damages Of $168.5 Million, With The Merits Judgment Sustained After SCOTUS Refused To Grant A Certiorari Petition. At the federal level, the Defend Trade Secrets Act has a fee-shifting provision which basically allows a prevailing plaintiff to seek recovery of discretionary attorney’s fees from a district court if the trade secret misappropriation

Fee Clause Interpretation, Poof!, Trade Secrets: Defendant Defeating Contractual Damages Claims Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Where Fees Clause Only Applied To Equitable/injunctive Relief Wins

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Trade Secrets

Results Is That $533,086.19 Fee Award Went POOF! On Appeal.                 The next case is a continuation of a case we earlier posted on, Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 556, discussed in our March 11, 2024 post.  There, plaintiff obtained preliminary and then later permanent injunctions against defendant in a trade

Trade Secrets: Plaintiff’s Dismissal Of One Defendant In Trade Secrets Case Did Not Justify Award Of Prevailing Party Fees Under The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act Fee-Shifting Provision As To Dismissed Defendant

Cases: Trade Secrets

Even Though The Dismissal Was Strategic, Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Plaintiff’s Claim Was Objectively Specious.                The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act does have a fee-shifting provision if a court finds a plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation claim was made in bad faith (Civ. Code, § 3426.1), which requires a finding of both objective speciousness and

Trade Secrets: Significantly Reduced $272,325.05 Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Trade Secrets

Both Objective And Subjective Prongs Of Fee Entitlement Were Satisfied.                In Reilly Financial Advisors, LLC v. Cariani, Case No. D081870 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 19. 2024) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal faced confronting the propriety of a significantly reduced fee award of $272.325.05 in a trade secret misappropriation case after plaintiff former employer

Allocation, Costs, Trade Secrets: Plaintiff Obtaining Permanent Injunction Was Entitled To Contractual Attorney’s Fees, But Fee Determination By Lower Court Remanded To Reconsider 75% Reduction In Request And Denial Of Discovery Work

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Trade Secrets

4/3 DCA Also Determined Contractual Expenses Must Be Pled And Proven As Damages, As Well As Reversed A Nonsuit On Whether The Trade Misappropriation Was Willful and Malicious.                In Applied Medical Distrib. Corp. v. Jarrells, Case No. G062056 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2024) (published), plaintiff former employer Applied sued former employee Jarrells

Trade Secrets: Lower Court Did Not Erroneously Deny Civil Code § 3426.4 Fees To Unsuccessful Plaintiff In Trade Secret Misappropriation Case

Cases: Trade Secrets

Trial Judge Was Allowed To Credit Plaintiff’s Declaration Showing No Subjective Ill-Will.             Under Civil Code section 3426.4 (see our category “Trade Secrets”), trial judges have discretion to award attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing party if they determine that the trade secrets misappropriation claim was objectively and subjectively specious in nature.  Many times,

Trade Secrets, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: One Defendant Obtains Fee Award Of $254,147.40 Under Trade Secrets Fee Shifting Statute, While Another Defendant Denied Fees

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Trade Secrets

Other Defendant Denied Fees For Not Providing Sufficient Substantiation Of Claimed Fees.             In Environmental Logistics, Inc. v. Hayward, Case No. D080515, and Environmental Logistics, Inc. v. Tabush, Case No. D080516 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 25, 2023) (unpublished), two companion cases, Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including three former employees, for interference and trade secret

Allocation, Trade Secrets: $299,647.50 Fee Award Against Plaintiff For Bringing A Frivolous Trade Secret Misappropriate Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Trade Secrets

Lower Court Did Reduce The Fee Request About $121,000 In Fashioning Its Award.             We have a category “Trade Secrets” describing some fairly hefty fee “sanctions” awards under Civil Code section 3426.4, part of the California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  To this list can be added the award in SASCO v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc.,

Trade Secrets: Law Firm Loosing Trade Secret Case Against Former Employee, A Transactional Attorney, Properly Assessed With Costs Of $51,477.44 And $714,382.50 In Fees Under Civil Code Section 3426.4

Cases: Trade Secrets

Appellate Court Rejected That A Frivolousness, Rather Objectively Specious, Standard Governed.             Civil Code section 3426.4 is the fee-shifting statute under California’s Uniform Trade Secret Act.  It allows a trial court to discretionarily award reasonable fees and costs to a prevailing defendant where a misappropriation claim “is made in bad faith,” which under interpretive case

Appealability, Trade Secrets: Denial Of Attorney’s Fees Under Trade Secret Statute, Before Resolution Of Entire Case, Was Not Appealable For Now

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Trade Secrets

Order Dismissing Appeal Was Recently Published.             In Dr. V Productions, Inc. v. Rey, Case No. B312605 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 10, 2021) (published), the appellate court confronted whether the denial of a $273,484.56 attorney’s fees request under the trade secret fee-shifting statute (Civil Code section 3426.4) was appealable where the trade secret claim

Scroll to Top