Not necessarily in California. The answer depends upon the unsettled issue whether California summary adjudication rules allow courts to dismiss some but not all of the asserted trade secrets before trial.

Trade secret claims brought by a technology company typically allege theft of not one but many trade secrets.  The law recognizes as separate and specific trade secrets not just a particular technology, but also the underlying research, study, tests or investigation relating to this technology.  For example, in Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Superior Court, 178 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1345 n.10 (2009), the court found that “Perlan’s eight purported trade secrets are: ‘(1) the Charles Invention, (2) Perlan’s Protein Multimerization Process, (3) Perlan’s novel idea [involving sialidase to] create a drug to combat the flu, and (4) all related research, (5) development, (6) advancements, (7) improvements and (8) processes related thereto.’”

Each of the numerous alleged trade secrets must satisfy certain requirements before they are deemed protectable in the eyes of the law.  A trade secret must be described with sufficient particularity and have independent economic value derived from having been kept secret.  And even if a particular trade secret is deemed legally protectable, there is no actionable theft (misappropriation) unless the trade secret has been improperly acquired, used or disclosed.

It is very rare that all trade secrets asserted at the beginning of a case satisfy all the requirements.   There often are many clunkers among the asserted secrets and this is sussed out through the development of the case leading up to the trial.   Furthermore, the identity of the bad trade secrets is or at least should be quite clear to the parties and the court following expert discovery, and in some cases even earlier in discovery.  Limiting trial to those trade secrets that have some basis in law or fact can save the parties hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney and expert fees and costs otherwise incurred to prosecute or defend the bad trade secrets on top those that might have some merit.  Precious and scarce court resources are saved for resolving legitimately asserted trade secrets (and are not diluted or wasted on resolving the bad ones).

In California, it may not be possible to obtain partial judgment on some but not all asserted trade secrets.  Lawsuits brought in California court for misappropriation of trade secrets under California law (California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civ. Code, § 3426 et seq.) are governed by state procedural rules for summary judgement and summary adjudication.  Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (a) (summary judgment) and (f) (summary adjudication).  Summary judgement terminates the entire action.  Summary adjudication is directed to some but not all “causes of action,” such that following entry of summary adjudication the case proceeds to trial on the remaining causes of action.  You therefore can’t get summary judgment on some but not all trade secret claims, but you might get summary adjudication if the challenged trade secret claim is deemed a “cause of action” within the meaning of the rule. Continue Reading Can You Get Partial SJ on Some But Not All Trade Secrets?

Jury trial on reasonable royalty? Courtesy Google Images
Right to jury trial on reasonable royalty damages differs depending on whether suit brought under DTSA or California version of UTSA

The new Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) became law on May 11, 2016 and applies to any misappropriation that occurs on or after that date.

Although the DTSA creates a federal, civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation, it does not preempt state law.  This is going to encourage serious forum shopping, including, among other things, over the right to jury trial.

The federal law cedes to the jury the determination of all possible monetary damages claims.  In comparison, the version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) adopted by California (CUTSA), while giving the jury the issues of lost profits and unjust enrichment, reserves for the trial judge the determination whether and to what extent to award reasonable royalty damages. Continue Reading Unlike California, New Federal Trade Secret Law Offers Right to Jury Trial on Reasonable Royalty Damages

Late yesterday, the House of Representatives joined the Senate in passing a sweeping new statute that creates a new federal civil cause of action for trade secret theft.  The new statute, called the Defense of Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), can be found here and is expected to be signed into law by the President within the next few days.

Where will we first see the effects of the new federal trade secret law?  Answer: in the hundreds (thousands?) of currently pending state court trade secret misappropriation cases.  Soon after the DTSA becomes effective there will be a significant increase in federal district court decisions being relied upon in state courts to explain and construe existing state trade secret statutes. Continue Reading Wave of Federal Trade Secret Decisions Soon to Hit State Courts

This post summarizes Proportionality Compels Early Disclosure of Patent Damages, found here, first published by the IP Law Section, State Bar of California in connection with the March 23, 2016 seminar “Patent Disputes for our Time: New Realities, New Approaches.” 

Patent litigation norm: bludgeon one another before determining case value
Patent litigation norm: bludgeon one another before determining case value

The Dec 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure call for greater effort on the part of the court and the parties to ensure that the time and expense invested in a case is proportional to value of the case.  The typical practice in patent litigation of bludgeoning first and valuing later presents a particularly compelling focus for the renewed emphasis on achieving proportionality.

Since there is a direct causal relationship between early disclosure of patent damages and achieving proportionality, the high likelihood is that courts, going forward, will strictly enforce the requirement that a patent plaintiff provide its damage computations in its Rule 26(a) initial disclosures.  To avoid prejudice to the patent plaintiff, any such early disclosures should be non-binding and subject to revision as the case proceeds. Continue Reading Amendments to Civil Procedure Rules: Ending Patent Practice of Bludgeoning First and Valuing Later

DTSA does not block employment based merely on inevitable disclosure (courtesy Google images)
DTSA does not block employment based merely on inevitable disclosure (courtesy Google images)

Proposed legislation creating a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation is on the fast track to becoming law, as described in James Pooley’s excellent post What You Need to Know About the Amended Defend Trade Secrets Act [link], January 31, 2016 Guest Post, Patently-O.  Referred to as the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the legislation was favorably reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 28, 2016.

For those seeking to catch up on these developments, the recent posts and articles by Mr. Pooley and his colleagues are a great place to start learning the salient characteristics of the new law, including the rejection of the idea that an employee should be blocked from taking a new job based on the doctrine known as “inevitable disclosure.”  The DTSA’s rejection of “inevitable disclosure” warrants a closer look; it means the DTSA embraces California’s robust policy favoring free mobility of employees between jobs.  Let’s break this down. Continue Reading New Federal Trade Secret Law is Pro Employee Mobility and Rejects Inevitable Disclosure

Trend is patent litigation loser pays fees or costs - but not this time (courtesy Google Images)
Trend is patent litigation loser pays fees or costs – but not this time (courtesy Google Images)

The significant filing fees spent by an accused infringer on a successful American Invents Act (AIA) review are not taxable as costs in the underlying district court patent litigation, according to the January 5, 2016 decision [pdf] in Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services.

In Credit Acceptance, the district court refused to tax as costs the $73,200 in filing fees paid by the accused infringer and prevailing party Westlake to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in successfully challenging Credit Acceptance’s patent in an AIA review.  Although the ruling goes against the general shift of both the Courts and Congress to increasing the financial risks of bringing unsuccessful patent litigation (this in service of the underlying policy of reducing the number of frivolous patent litigations), it appears to have been correctly decided.

Credit Acceptance tracks what has become a fairly typical fact pattern.  The owner of a patent claiming a business method or a software innovation brings suit for patent infringement in federal court.  In response, the accused infringer seeks AIA review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the validity or patentability of the claimed invention.  The court stays the litigation pending administrative review.  The PTAB sustains the challenge, compelling the party asserting patent infringement to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  As observed in Credit Acceptance, there is strong case precedent for finding that under these circumstances the accused infringer is the prevailing party. Continue Reading Loser Does Not Pay for AIA Costs


Image from NegativeSpace

For the last few decades, corporations ranging from startups to large multinationals first turned to utility patents to protect their innovative software. These patents protected everything from the minute details of microprocessor operation (e.g., Intel’s microprocessor power consumption patent) to algorithms for a search engine (e.g.Google/Stanford’s page rank patent) to innovative user interfaces (e.g.,Amazon’s “one-click” patent). In fact, by 2011, patents on software made up more than half of all patents being issued.

See the August 2013 report from the Government Accountability Office on Intellectual Property here.

The Supreme Court’s June 2014 ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank calls into question the eligibility for patent protection of these issued utility patents on computer software, and is a barrier to future applications on computer software.  Alice and its progeny compel software developers to look beyond patents to protect their intellectual property.  What are these alternatives?  When and how can they be used? Continue Reading Courts Everywhere are Finding Software Patents Invalid, So What Next?

Lex Machina’s Spring 2015 Patent Case Filing Trends:

Patent case filings have been generally higher in the first five months of 2015 than in the last 8 months of 2014. May of 2015 had the most patent cases filed on any month so far this year (606 cases).

Lex Machina depicts this trend in this graphic:

Patent cases filed Jan 2014 through May 2015 (2015 in orange)., July 10, 2015, Fig. 1: Patent cases filed Jan 2014 through May 2015 (2015 in orange).

But why are we seeing this recent increase in patent case filings?  Isn’t this surprising given legislative, court, executive and administrative developments that have made it much more difficult to successfully sue for patent infringement?  Nope.

Continue Reading Possibility of More Reform Spurs Increase in Patent Case Filings

lined box with coloring outside the lines via googleimages

OIP Technologies v. and IPC v. Active Network are the most recent of a growing number of decisions dismissing software and business method patent lawsuits on the pleadings. In these decisions, the courts are finding that the invention alleged in the complaint is an abstract idea that is not eligible for patent protection.

While early resolution of patent litigation is laudable, motions directed to the pleadings generally may not consider matters outside what is pled in the complaint. Yet this is what courts are doing — they have been coloring outside the lines when deciding whether a patented software or business method is an ineligible abstraction.  They are looking beyond the allegations in the complaint to discern “fundamental economic concepts.”  Independent of anything pled in the complaint, they are making historical observations about alleged longstanding commercial practices and deciding whether the claimed invention is analogous to such practices.

Coloring outside the lines may not be acceptable.  The benefit of providing an early exit from otherwise expensive and burdensome patent litigation may be outweighed by the prejudice to all parties of eroding the rules regarding the matters that may be considered before throwing out a lawsuit. Perhaps there is a better solution. Perhaps pleading motions challenging patent subject matter eligibility should be converted to expedited and limited scope summary judgment motions, thereby allowing the parties to present declarations, testimony and other extrinsic evidence that better address whether a claimed economic practice is an unpatentable idea or a patentable invention. Continue Reading In Rush to Invalidate Patents at Pleadings Stage, Are Courts Coloring Outside the Lines?

A lodestar is a star used to guide a ship's navigation
A lodestar is a star used to guide a ship’s navigation

Now that it is easier for prevailing parties in a patent litigation to recover attorney fees [see our previous post], how likely is that that fees paid under some form of non-hourly arrangement – for example flat fees, contingency, success fees  or some other alternative fee arrangement (AFA) – can be recovered?  The answer is that the court’s end-of-case determination of a reasonable hourly rate and fee, called the “lodestar,” trumps the amount paid under any AFA.

AFAs that exceed the lodestar likely cannot be recovered.  In Kilopass v Sidense (ND Cal), Judge Illston found that Kilopass engaged in litigation misconduct and made exceptionally meritless infringement claims, and, therefore, awarded Sidense attorney fees totaling $5.3 million.  (Kilopass has appealed.)

While the fees awarded to Sidense are significant, they appear to be less than half of the fees that Sidense actually paid its counsel under a contingency bonus arrangement.  Sidense’s fee arrangement called for Sidense to pay 50% of its lawyer’s hourly billing on a monthly basis, with the remaining 50% held back until the end of the case.  The payment of the holdback was tied to a performance based multiplier.  Since the court granted summary judgment in Sidense’s favor and dismissed all claims, Sidense’s counsel was entitled to the maximum multiplier of 2.5x, effectively requiring Sidense to pay 175% of its lawyers’ standard rates.  While the public record does not disclose the full amount of the contingency bonus, what can be inferred from the decision is that the fees paid by Sidense under the contingency arrangement exceeded $11 million (based on inferred standard rate fees of $6.5 million).

Continue Reading Patent Litigation Fee Awards: Hourly-Based Lodestar Trumps AFAs