Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp.

44 Citing cases

  1. Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp.

    48 Cal.App.5th 129 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 49 times
    Indicating that plaintiff has the "burden of proving damages [in a trade secret case] by showing the misappropriation, the subsequent commercial use, and ... evidence by which the jury can value the rights the defendant has obtained"

    I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An extensive recitation of the facts and history of the case may be found in this court's prior decisions, Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Group Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 21, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 221 ( Ajaxo I ) and Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1295, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 ( Ajaxo II ). We summarize what is necessary for an understanding of the issues on appeal.

  2. Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory Inc.

    226 Cal.App.4th 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 115 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding filing patent applications based on another's trade secrets is "a classic violation of trade secret law"

    (§ 3426.3, subds. (a) & (b); Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1308–1309, 1312–1313, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 (Ajaxo ); see also K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 954, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 247; Morlife, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1529, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 731; Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 628, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 741.) KMSL contends the trial court improperly “tailor[ed] a new category of damages to fit Altavion.”

  3. Intellisoft, Ltd. v. Acer Am. Corp.

    No. H049311 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2023)

    The two opinions preceding Ajaxo III are Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Group Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 21 and Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1295 (Ajaxo II).

  4. LBF Travel Mgmt. Corp. v. DeRosa

    20-cv-2404-MMA-SBC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    CUTSA differs from the DTSA on reasonable royalty as a court may order a reasonable royalty only where “neither actual damages to the holder of the trade secret nor unjust enrichment to the user is provable.” Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp., 187 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1308-09 (2010).

  5. BladeRoom Grp. Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.

    Case No. 5:15-cv-01370-EJD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)   Cited 5 times

    "A defendant's unjust enrichment is typically measured by the defendant's profits flowing from the misappropriation," not from those profits a defendant would have otherwise earned. Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp., 187 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 1305 (2010) (emphasis added); see also Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 45 cmt. f (1995) ("The traditional form of restitutionary relief in an action for the appropriation of a trade secret is an accounting of the defendant's profits on sales attributable to the use of the trade secret."). Consequently, "[w]here the plaintiff's loss does not correlate directly with the misappropriator's benefit," the calculation of unjust enrichment damages "becomes more complex," and "[t]here is no standard formula to measure it."

  6. Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc.

    277 F. Supp. 3d 1127 (E.D. Cal. 2017)   Cited 27 times
    Denying summary judgment where company submitted evidence indicating it had spent over eighty hours investigating the defendants' unauthorized access to its computer systems

    The Uniform Act's reasonable royalty provision "track[s] the common law practice of allowing for reasonable royalties when the plaintiff could not prove any loss and the defendant ‘made no actual profits.’ " Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp. , 187 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1311, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 (2010) ; see alsoA. Inertial Sys., Inc. v. Condor P. Indus. of Cal. Inc. , 545 Fed.Appx. 600, 601 (9th Cir. 2013) (trial court erred in ruling jury's finding of no damages precluded a reasonable royalty).

  7. Atl. Inertial Sys., Inc. v. Condor Pac. Indus. of Cal., Inc.

    545 F. App'x 600 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.3(b). That requirement may be met by either a lack of sufficient evidence or an adverse jury finding with respect to those forms of relief. Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp., 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 168, 172-73 (Ct. App. 2010). The jury's finding that Defendants did not proximately cause harm to Plaintiff is therefore consistent with the availability of a royalty under the statute.

  8. EnerTrode, Inc. v. Gen. Capacitor Co.

    Case No. 16-cv-02458-HSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2019)

    Zheng Mot. at 11-12. In support, Defendants exclusively rely on Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp., 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 168 (Ct. App. 2010), for the principle that "the legally required" unjust enrichment calculation is a "but for" revenues test. Id.

  9. De Lage Landen Operational Services, LLC v. Third Pillar Systems, Inc.

    851 F. Supp. 2d 850 (E.D. Pa. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    SeeCal. Civ.Code § 3426.3; Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp., 187 Cal.App.4th 1295, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 168, 179 (2010). DLL and Third Pillar have agreed that damages in the form of actual losses cannot be proven.

  10. Applied Med. Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells

    319 Cal. Rptr. 3d 205 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 4 times

    Accordingly, where California law is silent, we shall refer to cases from other jurisdictions to the extent they construe or explain provisions of the Uniform Act that are similar to the corresponding sections of the [California UTSA]." (Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*TradeFinancial Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1305, fn. 6, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 168.)Applied sometimes refers to "mitigation" and "remediation" interchangeably.