• Attorneys
  • Practices & Industries
  • Thought Leadership +
    • Videos
    • Podcasts
    • Publications
      • Chemical Law & Prop 65 Blog
    • Webinars
  • News & Events +
    • News
    • Events/
      Speaking Engagements
  • About
  • Careers
  • Diversity
  • Contact
  • Offices
  • Payment Portal +
    • Pay your invoice
    • Pay your retainer
Buchalter
  • About
  • Careers
  • Diversity
  • Contact
  • Offices
  • Attorneys
  • Practices & Industries
  • Thought Leadership +
    • Publications
      • Chemical Law & Prop 65 Blog
    • Webinars
    • Videos
    • Podcasts
  • News & Events +
    • News
    • Events/
      Speaking Engagements
  • Payment Portal +
    • Pay your invoice
    • Pay your retainer
« View All Publications

Is Your Confidential Information “Property” if it Does Not Qualify as a Trade Secret?

By: Richard Darwin, Esq. 

The answer likely is “no” according to a recent decision from a federal court in San Francisco. The plaintiff in that case, a data storage company, alleged that a competitor misappropriated its trade secrets by illegally accessing its proprietary databases. The plaintiff also alleged several alternative claims on the grounds that, even if the stolen information did not qualify as a trade secret, it was nonetheless a valuable asset, and its theft was therefore a wrongful act. The court dismissed those alternative claims, reasoning that, “in order for the taking of information to constitute wrongdoing, the information must be ‘property’ as defined by some source of positive law.” The court rejected the plaintiff’s theory that the confidential information was “property” by virtue of California Labor Code Section 2860, which provides (in part) that “everything which an employee acquires by virtue of his employment, except the compensation which is due to him from his employer, belongs to the employer.” This code section, the court held, does not grant an employer a positive property right in its employees’ non-trade secret work product. The case, which also addresses interesting questions of trade secret preemption and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, is NetApp, Inc. v. Nimble Storage, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11406 (N.D. Cal. January 29, 2015).

Share

Related Areas

  • Litigation
  • Intellectual Property Law
Buchalter footer logo

Adam Bass, Buchalter President & CEO

  • About
  • Careers
  • News & Events
  • Subscribe
  • CA Privacy Notice
  • PI Opt-Out
  • Denver
  • Los Angeles
  • Napa Valley
  • Orange County
  • Portland
  • Sacramento
  • Salt Lake City
  • San Diego
  • San Francisco
  • Scottsdale
  • Seattle
  • © Copyright 2023 Buchalter, A Professional Corporation
Buchalter Communications

We love sharing our knowledge, but we don't want to inundate you. If you would like to receive communications from Buchalter, please highlight the text boxes below indicating which type of communications you would like to receive, and provide your name and email address. [Street address is only necessary for Points and Authorities.] We appreciate your interest in our work.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Sign Up