Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SPRING 2020, Volume 45, Number 1
Content
- Broad Institute Crispr: Epo Patent Revocation Lessons for Claiming Priority to Provisional Applications
- Federal Circuit Report
- McLe Self-Study Article: Bubble, Bubble, Oil-no Trouble?
- AmGen: Markush Practice in 2020
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Letter from the Chair
- McLe Self-Study Article: Ethics of Social Media For Lawyers: Where Stunting For the Gram Meets Losing Your Bar Card
- The Licensing Corner
- Upcoming Events
- Copyright News
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2019-2020
- Case Comments
- 2020 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- Quarterly International Ip Law Update
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2019-2020
- Contents
- Ip and Art: An International Perspective
- Ninth Circuit Report
- The California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Alumni
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
Case Comments
Lowell Anderson
Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker
AGREEMENTS
"Business and Professions Code section 16600 has consistently been interpreted as invalidating any employment agreement that unreasonably interferes with an employee’s ability to compete with an employer after his or her employment ends. [Citation omitted.] However, the statute does not affect limitations on an employee’s conduct or duties while employed." Two employees promised they would not compete with their employer when they opened and operated a business, but later did compete and concealed the competition. When sued for breaching the promise, a jury found the employees breached a duty of disclosure and were liable for fraud. The promise was not voided by § 16600 and findings of fraud and interference with prospective business advantage were affirmed. Techno Lite, Inc. v. EMCOD, LLC, 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 41, 2020 WL 289084 (Cal. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2020).