Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon, 542 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2008)

Kevin Gagnon, doing business as “Mister Computer,” alleged that his former customer, Asset Marketing Systems (“AMS”), infringed his copyright in six computer programs that he wrote for AMS by continuing to use and modify them without his consent and that AMS misappropriated trade secrets contained in the programs’ source code. After AMS

Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court, 163 Cal. App. 4th 575 (2008)

The trade secret owner in this case, Silvaco Data Systems, develops and licenses electronic design automation software. In late 1998, a former Silvaco employee, working for Circuit Systems, Inc. (“CSI”), incorporated Silvaco’s “SmartSpice” trade secrets into CSI’s product, “DynaSpice.” Silvaco sued the employee as well as CSI and in 2003 entered into a

Profit Concepts Mgmt., Inc. v. Griffith, 162 Cal. App. 4th 950 (2008)

Profit Concepts sued Greg Griffith, a former employee, for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets in Orange County Superior Court. Griffith, who was an Oklahoma resident at the time, moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. (The contract contained a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision.) Profit Concepts filed

Alliant Ins. Services, Inc. v. Gaddy, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1292 (2008)

Alliant Insurance Services purchased a competing insurance brokerage company from G. Scott Gaddy for $4.1 million and then employed him under a senior management agreement. Both the purchase and employment agreements contained covenants whereby Gaddy agreed not to compete with Alliant or to solicit Alliant’s or Gaddy’s clients for three years following

San Jose Constr., Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc., 155 Cal. App. 4th 1528 (2007)

Richard Foust was a project manager for San Jose Construction (“SJC”) for 4½ years before he became dissatisfied with his job and accepted a position at a higher salary with South Bay Construction (“South Bay”), one of SJC’s competitors. Foust believed that SJC’s clients would follow him to another company, so

Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp., 154 Cal. App. 4th 547 (2007)

Yield Dynamics, which develops and markets software products designed to facilitate the fabrication of microchips, sued its former employee, Terrence Zavecz, and two business entities of which he is a principal for breach of contract, violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and related claims. After a non-jury trial, the trial

ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton, 126 Cal. App. 4th 1006 (2005)

ReadyLink obtained an injunction against Jerome Cotton, a former employee, prohibiting Cotton from soliciting ReadyLink employees and customers and from using or disclosing ReadyLink’s trade secrets and confidential information. ReadyLink fired Cotton for stealing ReadyLink records containing proprietary and confidential information. During a search of his residence and storage locker (to which Cotton consented),

Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., 117 Cal. App. 4th 794 (2004)

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. and Jasmine Networks, Inc. are competitors in the business of designing and manufacturing telecommunications chips. Marvell offered to buy some of Jasmine’s technology, along with some of its engineers, and Jasmine accepted after negotiating a nondisclosure agreement preventing Marvell from obtaining Jasmine’s trade secrets or employees without paying

Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004)

Computer Task Group (CTG) sued William Brotby for breach of a non-solicitation/non-disclosure agreement that he signed while he was working as an information technologies consultant. CTG succeeded in obtaining an injunction prohibiting Brotby from working for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, one of CTG’s clients. During the discovery phase of the lawsuit, Brotby

People v. Laiwala, 115 Cal. App. 4th 850, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 466 (2004)

Sadrudin Laiwala, a former engineer of Odeum Microsystems, a division of Hyundai Electronics America, allegedly copied and took with him a “DVD copy protection system” immediately prior to his departure from the company. Laiwala was criminally prosecuted for violation of California Penal Code Section 499c, which prohibits the theft of