Courts often require a plaintiff to identify a trade secret with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery (and it is a statutory obligation in California).  But frequently a trade-secret plaintiff does not know precisely which trade secrets have been taken by the defendant before discovery commences.  In the recent Ninth Circuit decision InteliClear v. ETC Global Holdings (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2020), the appellate court held that, under its particular circumstances, a plaintiff who had not adequately specified its trade secrets at issue should nevertheless be permitted to engage in discovery for this purpose, where the plaintiff had shown discovery could provide the necessary information.  (Disclaimer: Sheppard Mullin served as co-counsel to the successful appellant-plaintiff in this case.)
Continue Reading Trade Secret Takeaways from the Ninth Circuit’s Decision in InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Global Holdings, Inc.

On April 23, 2020, the California Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court decision refusing to order payment of a “reasonable royalty” as damages for misappropriation of a trade secret.  For the first time in a published California appellate decision, the Ajaxo court applied a test used to determine royalties in patent cases to a trade secret misappropriation case. Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corporation, 261 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).

Continue Reading What’s the Value? California Court Applies Patent Royalties Test To Trade Secret Claim