Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The Trade Secrets Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: The Trade Secrets BlogCalifornia Clarifies Statute of Limitations on Trade Secret Claims
By benjohnson71
In Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court (Silvaco Data Systems), No. H032114 (Cal. Ct. App. May 30, 2008), the California Court of Appeals recently ruled that the Statute of Limitations begins to run on a claim for misappropriation under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act against a third party when the Plaintiff discovers the misappropriation. A comprehensive knowledge of all facts is not necessary. A Plaintiff need only have a reason to suspect the factual basis of a claim. Instructive of this approach, the Court of Appeal stated, ?[T]he plaintiff should not be expected to wait until he or she has direct proof of the defendant?s mental state before filing the lawsuit.?
In Cypress, the litigation centered around the defection of an employee from Silvaco Data Systems who misappropriated confidential information of Silvaco to develop a competing product for his new employer, Circuit Systems. Circuit then licensed its new product to its customers. Silvaco sued Circuit and the former employee, but did not sue Circuit’s customers. Eventually, Silvaco sued Cypress Semiconductor, a customer of Circuit who had licensed the new product from Silvaco–however the suit was brought more than three years after Silvaco’s claims against Circuit had ripened. On that basis, Cypress asserted that the claim was time-barred by the three year statute of limitation contained in the California Uniform Trade Secret Act. Silvaco argued that it was unaware of misuse by third parties until much later, and had therefore begun its suit against Cypress within the three limitation period.
Thus, Cypress stands for the common sense proposition that a suing party under the California Uniform Trade Secrets has three years from the discovery of each party’s misappropriation of its trade secrets. This, of course, is often a factual issue and entitled to a jury determination. Indeed, in Cypress, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court should have determined when Silvaco first had any suspicions that Circuit Systems’ customers obtained Silvaco’s trade secret information, or had reason to know, that the software licensed by Circuit Systems to its own customers contained Silvaco’s trade secrets.

Full post as published by The Trade Secrets Blog on June 20, 2008 (boomark / email).
Trade Secrets
Former execs are hit with doctrine of inevitable disclosure.
Paxil Lawsuit
Paxil Claims, Lawsuits, and Injuries
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Dumb California Laws
Stupid Laws in the Sunshine State
$600,000 Settlement with LINA and CIGNA for Claims Handling Violations in California
$600,000 Settlement with LINA and CIGNA for Claims Handling Violations in California
Victoria's Secret
Bras may have caused Woman's Itching, Rash and Welts
Trade Secrets
Razorsight agreed to pay $4.5 million settlement in infringement lawsuit.
False Claims
Attorney Robert Arledge ordered to pay $5.8 million after making false Fen Phen settlement claims.
Newspaper Publisher
Star Tribune must pay St. Paul Pioneer Press a $3.8 million trade secrets act violations settlement.
LINA - Cigna Life Insurance Company of North America Disability Claims
LINA Insurance alleging violations of disability insurance claims.

Trade Secrets Statute of Limitations - California
Calif. ruling alters statute of limitations in stolen trade secret actions
Cal App - For SOL purposes, focus is on plaintiff's suspicions.
Dont Play Mind Games With Trade Secrets








