Remedies

Subscribe to Remedies via RSS

Whether a court order is appealable is often the first issue analyzed by appellate attorneys. An interlocutory order is an order issued by a court while a case is pending. These orders are not a final disposition of the case, but some interlocutory orders may be appealed even while the litigation continues. California law generally holds that “[t]o qualify as appealable, the interlocutory order must be a final determination of a matter that is collateral—i.e., distinct and severable—from the general subject of the litigation.”[1]
Continue Reading Trade Secret Misappropriation: Denial of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees under CUTSA is Not an Appealable Order

On July 9, 2021 President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, which urges the Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to curb the use of non-compete and no-poach agreements.  The Executive Order aims  to foster a “fair, open, and competitive marketplace,” and calls for a “whole-of-government” approach to reverse trends of industry consolidation and anticompetitive practices. The Order indicates these trends have harmed employees’ wages, work conditions, and mobility.  It further targets what it characterizes as the “overuse” of non-compete agreements and other barriers to entry in certain markets.
Continue Reading President’s Executive Order Aims to Foster a Competitive Marketplace

In trade secrets litigation, it is often critical to expeditiously obtain protection from further disclosure or continued misappropriation of the trade secret at issue through a motion for preliminary injunction.  Courts are quick to point out, however, that preliminary injunctions are “an extraordinary and drastic remedy,” and are only to be granted if the movant, “by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion” as to each element of the preliminary injunction test.  Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (observing that to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must generally demonstrate that: “1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of such a claim; 2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; 3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and 4) that an injunction is in the public interest.”).
Continue Reading Trade Secret Litigants Take Note: California District Court Provides Guidance on Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Discovery

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Van Buren v. United States, — S. Ct. —-, 2021 WL 2229206 (2021) resolved a longstanding Circuit split regarding the scope of liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq. As we previewed last year, Van Buren addressed whether a person “exceeds authorized access” within the meaning of the CFAA when accessing information on a computer for an improper purpose. In an Opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that the CFAA does not cover those who have improper motives for obtaining computerized information they are otherwise authorized to access.  
Continue Reading Supreme Court Narrows The Scope of Liability Under The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Amidst long-simmering diplomatic tensions between China and the United States, disputes arising out of Chinese companies’ alleged theft of technological trade secrets from rival American companies[1] have found their way to federal courtrooms. This stems, in part, from the availability of worldwide injunctive relief under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), which provides American companies with a robust tool to combat trade secret misappropriation by foreign entities in cases where “an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1837(2).
Continue Reading Illinois Court Finds China Inadequate Forum For Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims Against Chinese Tech Company

Whether under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) or under state law uniform trade secrets acts (“UTSA”), assessing monetary damages in trade secret misappropriation cases is rarely easy.  By definition, trade secrets lose their value once they lose their secrecy, but the lost value is often difficult to monetize.  Calculating damages for misappropriation should account for the lost value of the trade secret “asset,” but courts often lose sight of this calculus in fixing damages.  Lost profits, unjust enrichment, and reasonable royalties are common measures of damages in trade secret misappropriation cases, but there is another rarely considered measure of damages:  the diminution in value of a plaintiff’s trade secret caused by the misappropriation.  Damages for the diminution in value of a trade secret are a form of compensatory damages, though some courts will grant injunctive relief due to the difficulty in valuing the diminution of trade secrets.  Aerodynamics Inc. v. Caesars Entm’t Operating Co., No. 2:15-cv-01344-JAD-PAL, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129588, at *1 (D. Nev. Sep. 24, 2015).  DTSA (and most UTSA statutes), of course, recognize compensatory damages as a viable theory.  18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(B).  When courts have assessed trade-secret diminution theories, they have emphasized the critical importance of a quality expert and an almost asset-sale like economic valuation of the trade secrets.
Continue Reading Diminution in Value As A Measure of Damages for Trade Secret Misappropriation

Global competition in high-tech industries is as intense as ever, and U.S. administrative agencies continue to find themselves at the center of global disputes between foreign companies seeking to vindicate trade secret and intellectual property rights.  That outlook was confirmed this month in a highly-anticipated ruling by the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in a trade secret dispute between two South Korean manufacturers of electric vehicle batteries.
Continue Reading LG Chem’s Win In $1 Billion Electric Vehicle Trade Secret Dispute Upheld by International Trade Commission

Courts are increasingly scrutinizing agreements that extend beyond what is necessary to protect bona fide confidential information and trade secrets.  The recent decision in Hamilton v. Juul Labs, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-03710-EMC, illustrates this trend.  On January 27, 2021, a California federal judge ruled that an ex-employee’s lawsuit against e-cigarette manufacturer Juul Labs, Inc. regarding Juul’s allegedly over-restrictive non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) may move forward.  The case, filed by Juul’s former Director of Program Management, Marcie Hamilton, is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Edward M. Chen presiding.
Continue Reading A “Culture Of Concealment” – Scrutinizing Overbroad NDAs