Cases: Trade Secrets

Trade Secret: $180,817.50 Fee Award Against Dismissing Trade Secret Misappropriation Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Trade Secrets

  Defendant Did Prevail, And Both Objective/Subjective Prongs Of Fee-Shifting Statute Were Satisfied.      For a non-prevailing plaintiff in a trade secret misappropriation under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act (CUTSA), where objective speciousness and a subjective improper purpose is demonstrated, the prevailing defense can be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under Civil Code […]

POOF!/Prevailing Party/Trade Secrets: Prior Reversal Of Tort Claim Dismissals In Trade Secret Case Meant Attorney’s Fees Award Had To Be Overturned Also

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Trade Secrets

  $1.5 Million Award Went POOF!      Earlier, in Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park, Case No. D063027 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 19, 2014) (unpublished), the appellate court overturned a lower court dismissal of certain tort claims based on the notion that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which has a fee-shifting provision if

Allocation/Equity/Trade Secrets: Where Default Judgment Reversed For 3 Out Of 4 Defendants, Attorney’s Fees Had To Be Revisited Although Fourth Defendant Conceded Liability.

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Equity, Cases: Trade Secrets

  Complaint Prayer Gave Notice, But Fee Amount “Re-do” Necessary on Remand.      In Lawson-Hawks Ins., Inc. v. McVey Ins. Broker, Inc., Case No. H038466 (6th Dist. July 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff sued four defendants (an insurance agency, an insurance brokerage company, and certain agents) for willful violation of trade secrets. Plaintiff obtained a default

Trade Secrets: Third District Affirms $735,781.27 Fee Award To Defendants Under Trade Secret Fee-Shifting Statute

Cases: Trade Secrets

  Lodestar Plus 1.3 Positive Multiplier for Defense Work Sustained on Appeal.      Aerotek, Inc. v. The Johnson Group Staffing Co., Inc., Case No. C070832 (3d Dist. May 13, 2014) (unpublished) was somewhat of a train wreck from the suing plaintiff’s perspective.       Train wrecked by Zapata.  Library of Congress.      Plaintiff company sued a

Allocation/Employment/Trade Secrets: Wage Nonpayment And Trade Secret Misappropriation Fee Recoveries To Prevailing Defendants Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Trade Secrets

  Interrelatedness of Contract/Wage Nonpayment Administrative Proceedings and Trade Secret Bad Faith Justified Sustaining of Lower Court Awards.      Plaintiff lost both DLSE administrative proceedings and a breach of contract/trade secret case against various defendants, with the lower court then awarding one defendant Labor Code section 98.2 fees of $43,881.25 for winning the DLSE appeal/beating

Trade Secrets: Jury’s Failure To Award Punitive Damages Did Not Preclude Lower Court From Awarding Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff Under UTSA Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Trade Secrets

  Punitive Damage Ruling Did Not Dispositively Bind Trial Judge From Awarding Fees Under Civil Code Section 3426.4.      For those of you who follow our blog (or, for first time viewers, welcome), we have discussed many cases under our category “Trade Secrets” to the lefthand side of our Home Page. That happens to be

Trade Secrets: Failure To Identify Trade Secret With Particularity Meant Plaintiff’s Case Was Baseless, Justifying A Fee Award Of More Than $202,291.50 To Defendant

Cases: Trade Secrets

  Civil Code Section 3426.4 Was the Fee Entitlement Predicate.      Civil Code section 3426.4 allows a prevailing party in a trade secret misappropriation case to obtain a discretionary award of attorney’s fees and costs if the claim is made in bad faith. Case law has clarified that both objective speciousness and subjective bad faith

Settlement/Section 1717/Trade Secret: Court of Appeal Honors Settlement Agreement Procedures Reserving Fee Determination

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement, Cases: Trade Secrets

Settlement Agreement’s Reservation Of Fee Determination Based on Trade Secret Misappropriation Statute Did Allow Lower Court To Determine If Fee Entitlement Proven In Postjudgment Fee Proceeding Denial of Fee Recovery Reversed and Remanded.      Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc., Case No. B243467 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 14, 2013) (published) demonstrates that appellate courts

Discovery/Special Fee Shifting Statute/Trade Secrets: Losing Plaintiffs In Patent/Trade Secret Dispute Hit With $12.46 Million For Attorney’s Fees And Electronic Discovery Expenses

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Trade Secrets

  Only $1 Million Reduction From Fees Requested.      Patent/trade secrets are usually vigorously and heavily litigated, and the losers can get hit with substantial fees/expenses as Gabriel Techs., Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 08CV1992 AJB (MDD), 2013 WL 410103 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) demonstrates.      There, plaintiffs lost a patent infringement/trade secrets case.

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Substantiation of Fees/Trade Secrets: Ninth Circuit Decision Is In — Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Trade Secrets

  Trade Secrets Damages/Fees/Costs Go POOF!, But Copyright Defense Fee/Costs Recovery to MGA Sustained On Appeal.      In a remarkably short decision penned by Chief Justice Kozinski on behalf of a 3-0 panel, the Ninth Circuit has taken some things away and let other things stay in the oft-posted-upon Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.,

Scroll to Top