Intellectual Property Law
New Matter WINTER 2021, VOLUME 46, EDITION 4
Content
- 2022 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- A Look At the Trademark Modernization Act - Part 2
- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, "RETURN OR DESTROY" CLAUSES AND THE PERNICIOUS PERSISTENCE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS
- Federal Circuit Report
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Executive Committee 2021-2022
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Interest Group Representatives 2021-2022
- Intellectual Property Section New Matter Editorial Board
- Ip and Art: An International Perspective
- Letter From the Chair
- Letter From the Editor-in-chief
- My Holiday Wish List From the Uspto
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Quarterly International Ip Law Update
- Table of Contents
- The American Rule
- The California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Alumni
- The Doj's China Initiative and the Controversy of Prosecuting Professors and Researchers In the U.S. For Trade Secrets Theft
- The Nascent Showdown Between the Ninth Circuit's Server Test and Its Detractors
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Trade Secret Report
TRADE SECRET REPORT
Conor Tucker
Irell & Manella LLP
DTSA—PLEADING TRADE SECRETS SUFFICIENTLY
Whiteslate LLP v. Dahlin, 20-cv-1782 W (BGS) (S.D. Cal. July 7, 2021).
After transactional associate accepts in-house job at law firm client, law firm sues client and former associate alleging, in part, violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Firm alleged that transactional attorney provided various documents, templates, and other work product owned by it to client (with whom transactional attorney was interviewing for in-house position). Firm sues in part on DTSA and California UTSA (CUTSA). Court held on motion to dismiss that "catchall phrases" or "categorical information" such as "contracts, document templates, and other work-product, as well as [plaintiff’s] client list and database," is not sufficient to plead existence of a trade secret under either the DTSA or CUTSA (which the court notes are "substantially similar, and many courts analyze the claims together.")