With the growing popularity and prevalence of generative artificial intelligence, courts are increasingly being called upon to decide novel legal issues based on never-before-seen phenomena that are challenging the traditional paradigm applied to human-generated content. And copyright law is no exception.
Following the Legislature’s 2024 amendments to Section 16600, a new spotlight has been shown down on the so-called Trade Secret Exception and the rift that has emerged over the past few years between California courts about its continued application. Ultimately, the California Supreme Court will likely be called upon in the near future to address whether—and to what extent—an employer may include restrictive covenants in an employment agreement as necessary to protect the employer’s trade secrets. Until it does, litigants may credibly argue that the legislature’s recent amendments to Section 16600 abrogated the exception, diminished the exception, or had no effect on it at all.
In VFLA Eventco, LLC v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC, the California Court of Appeal recently affirmed the importance of drafting a contract with a clear understanding of every word and clause, and the effect each has on the contract as a whole.
On September 30, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill (SB) No. 235, now codified as California Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.090, introducing a significant shift towards encouraging proactive initial disclosures in state court civil litigation. This legislative change amends California’s Civil Discovery Act to include proactive initial disclosure rules that align with those used in Federal Court. Effective for almost all civil cases filed after January 1, 2024, until January 1, 2027, this amendment heralds a new era of discovery rules in California that aim to foster judicial efficiency, transparency, and fairness in civil litigation.
The recent decision in Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC, 2024 WL 358231 (1/31/24), asks the question: Will common exculpatory lease terms protect the landlord from an adverse jury verdict of gross negligence? Ultimately, the answer is “No.”
California requires that businesses file a Statement of Information to maintain compliance and the legal standing of your business - corporations are required to file a Statement of Information annually in the month of registration, while LLCs are required to submit the Statement of Information biennially (and within 90 days of registration). One of the latest scams targeting business, both foreign and domestic, involves fraudulent or misleading requests to submit a California Statement of Information on the business’ behalf. These deceptive practices can pose severe risks to your business by exploiting your legal obligations and imposing exorbitant fees.
Arbitration is a creature born of contract, and is favored as an expeditious and economical alternative to a civil lawsuit — in part due to the limited discovery available to parties in arbitration. Increasingly, however, arbitrations have increased in complexity, with discovery growing to proportions more typically seen in civil lawsuits (and likewise growing in cost). However, a California Court of Appeal has now explicitly enforced one of the limitations on discovery in arbitration, foreclosing discovery efforts from spilling over to nonparties to an arbitration unless the parties have otherwise agreed.
International enforcement of U.S. trademark rights just became much more difficult. On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision with concurrences from Justices Jackson and Sotomayor in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., No. 21-1043, 2023 WL 4239255 (U.S. June 29, 2023) (“Abitron”). The Court settled a decades-long circuit split on extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act by applying a new framework that focuses on where the mark is being used in commerce rather than where the effect of that use is felt.
In an eleventh-hour ruling made shortly before enforcement of the California Privacy Rights Act’s regulations was set to begin on July 1, a California judge has delayed enforcement until March 29, 2024. The delay reduces the pressure on businesses who had been facing potential enforcement of unfinalized regulations. However, the ruling is not a complete reprieve as the delay does not affect enforcement of the statute itself which can still be enforced as of July 1 by both the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) and the California Department of Justice.
In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a junior trademark user uses a parody of a famous trademark as an indicia of source for its own goods, the junior user cannot rely on the First Amendment to shield it from liability for trademark infringement for artistic or so-called “expressive works,” nor the parody exception to trademark dilution claims under the Lanham Act.
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- Dueling OpenAI Copyright Cases to Remain Separate, Parallel Actions on Both Coasts
- Section 16600 and the Fate of Trade Secret Exception
- The Contract Is In The Details
- Teaming With Our Clients – California Adopts “Initial Disclosures” in State Court Civil Litigation
- Recent Court of Appeal Decision Shows The Limits Of Exculpatory Clauses In Commercial Leases, Including Limitation of Damages Provisions
- Understanding Deceptive California Statement of Information Scams
- Closing of Pre-Hearing Discovery Loopholes in Arbitration
- International Enforcement of U.S. Trademarks: Simplicity for Complexity’s Sake
- Last Minute Court Decision Delays Enforcement of CPRA Regulations
- Trademark Infringement Is No Joking Matter: Supreme Court Reevaluates Parody Fair Use Exception and First Amendment’s Place in Trademark Infringement
Popular Categories
- (25)
- (24)
- (4)
- (4)
- (15)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (5)
- (4)
- (1)
- (5)
- (4)
- (1)
- (3)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Sean M. Anderson
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Reece C. Bennett
- Eduardo A. Carvajal
- Michele L. Collender
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Christopher M. Francis
- Runmin (Ivy) Gao
- Chayanm Garcia (CJ)
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Amber S. Healy
- Edward C. Ho
- Micah R. Jacobs
- John E. James
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Neil M. Katsuyama
- Joseph K. Lee
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Kenneth L. Perkins, Jr.
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Jon Ustundag
- Brian M. Wheeler