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.”
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)
- (1)
- (4)
- (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
- 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