27 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 268,482 times 366 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 58,617 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
In re Gilead Sciences
536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 2,916 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court need not accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory"
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.
467 U.S. 986 (1984) Cited 1,066 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that Missouri law, which follows the Restatement of Torts, creates cognizable property right in trade secrets
Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court
51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) Cited 1,567 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"
Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp.
154 Cal.App.4th 547 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 378 times 4 Legal Analyses
Affirming trial court's determination, after a bench trial, that the plaintiff did not have a claim for trade secret misappropriation primarily because it had failed to provide evidence that the trade secret possessed the independent value necessary
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.
991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 515 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that unlicensed "copying" occurred when copyrighted software was transferred from a storage device to a computer in the United States
Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co.
101 Cal.App.4th 1443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 253 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff's marketing strategy and plans constitute trade secrets under California law and that market research could be a trade secret if it explores the needs of numerous customers
Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp.
184 Cal.App.4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 189 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding "[i]t is critical to [a misappropriation of trade secrets] cause of action - and any defense - that the information claimed to have been misappropriated be clearly identified"
Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Group, Inc.
135 Cal.App.4th 21 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 199 times
Holding that disclosure or use of a trade secret in violation of a nondisclosure agreement is disclosure or use by improper means
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 347,976 times 926 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1624 - Contracts deemed invalid unless note or memorandum in writing
Cal. Civ. Code § 1624 Cited 1,319 times 4 Legal Analyses
Establishing that the statute of frauds applies to contracts "for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein"
Section 3426.1 - Definitions
Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1 Cited 872 times 22 Legal Analyses
Defining trade secrets under CUTSA similarly

Nextdoor.com, Inc. v. Abhyanker

27 Cited authorities

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

Holding that a court need not accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory"

Holding that Missouri law, which follows the Restatement of Torts, creates cognizable property right in trade secrets

Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

Affirming trial court's determination, after a bench trial, that the plaintiff did not have a claim for trade secret misappropriation primarily because it had failed to provide evidence that the trade secret possessed the independent value necessary

Holding that unlicensed "copying" occurred when copyrighted software was transferred from a storage device to a computer in the United States

Holding that the plaintiff's marketing strategy and plans constitute trade secrets under California law and that market research could be a trade secret if it explores the needs of numerous customers

Holding "[i]t is critical to [a misappropriation of trade secrets] cause of action - and any defense - that the information claimed to have been misappropriated be clearly identified"

Holding that disclosure or use of a trade secret in violation of a nondisclosure agreement is disclosure or use by improper means

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Establishing that the statute of frauds applies to contracts "for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein"

Defining trade secrets under CUTSA similarly