Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. H034441

By FindLaw Staff on December 30, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In plaintiff's action under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act claiming that the defendants misappropriated certain trade secrets belonging to plaintiff, trial court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had forfeited its standing to maintain an action for misappropriation when it had gone through bankruptcy proceedings shortly after filing the complaint is reversed where: 1) a current ownership requirement is not supported by general principles of property or tort law; 2) existing authority imposes no "current ownership requirement" on trade secret plaintiffs; 3) adoption of a current ownership requirement in trade secrets cases is not warranted by analogy to trademark, patent, or copyright law; and 4) no policy concern preponderates in favor of current ownership requirement. 

Read Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. H034441 [HTML]

Read Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. H034441 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed December 29, 2009


Opinion by Judge Rushing

For Appellant:   Trepel Law Firm, Anthony J. Trepel, McGrane Greenfield, William McGrane, Christopher Sullivan, Maureen Harrington, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robin Meadow, Marc J. Poster, Alana H. Rotter.

For Appellee:   Latham & Watkins, Steven M. Bauer, Charles Crompton, James K. Lynch, Cooke Kobrick & Wu, Steven S. Wu, Christopher C. Cooke, Jeffrey W. Kobrick

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard