Cases: Trade Secrets

Both Objective And Subjective Bad Faith Prongs Supported By Substantial Evidence.             The substantial evidence/abuse-of-discretion standards generally are hard to surmount.  No the less so in Jafari v. Gastelum, Case No. B293034 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 21, 2020) (unpublished).             What happened here is that defendant prevailed in an action for breach of contract/trade […]

Plaintiff Was Victorious In Its Other Claims And Trial Court Was Allowed To Consider Equitable Concerns – Such As Attorneys’ Fees Plaintiff Incurred To Preserve Its Business Against Defendants’ “Unscrupulous Behavior.”             In Techno Lite, Inc. v. Emcod, LLC, Case Nos. B284989 and B289486 (2d Dist., Div. 4 January 21, 2020) (partially published), two

Even Though Third Defendant Only Found Liable For $2,287, $100,000 Fee Award Proper Because He Was A Chief Actor In Trade Secret Bad Faith Misappropriation.             In Applied General Agency, Inc. v. Greenleaf Financial and Ins. Services, Inc., Case No. G055737 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 17, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff won a trade secrets misappropriation

Civil Code Section 3426.4 Allows A Prevailing Plaintiff Recovery For Willful And Malicious Misappropriation.             In trade secrets cases, Civil Code section 3426.4 allows for a discretionary court award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party “[i]f a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction

Fee Claimant Did Something Good—Apportioned Fees Upfront From A Common Defense So That The Fee Request Was Not Inflated And Was Reasonable In Nature.             We congratulate attorneys Eric Bjorgum and Vincent Pollmeier, who apparently follow our blog, for a nice attorney’s fees/costs proceeding win in a trade secrets misappropriation case which was presided over

Reason Was That The Trial Judge Based Bad Faith Finding On Determination Which Did Not Fully Encompass The Trade Secret Cause Of Action Relating To The Adversely Impacted Cross-Complainant             This is part of a continuing trade secret litigation saga, an attorney’s fees proceeding aftermath to a case we posted on in 2016, Dispatch &

  The True Blue Tattoo Parlor and Body Piercing Parlor in Austin, Texas. 2014-04-19. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. Library of Congress. [Note: This tattoo and body piercing parlor has no connection whatsoever to the case summarized below, other than the word “tattoo“. The photo is included simply to add a little color to our grey

  Also, Prevailing Defendant Did Not Get Fee Recovery For Texas Counsel Work In California Litigation Where No Pro Hac Vice Admission Was Obtained.      Dispatch & Tracking Solutions, LLC v. City of San Diego, Case Nos. D062426 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 8, 2016) (unpublished; over 100 pages long) is quite the