In a recent discovery dispute before the Northern District of California, Plaintiff Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“Monolithic”) unsuccessfully attempted to bypass California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 which requires the party making a claim of trade secret misappropriation under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) to identify the trade secret “with reasonable particularity” before “commencing discovery relating to the trade secret.”
Charles C. Adams, Jr., is the former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States to the Republic of Finland (2015-2017) and Global Co-Head of Orrick's International Arbitration Practice Group based in Geneva.
Charles' experience spans four decades at the highest levels of international dispute resolution, in more than 300 international arbitration proceedings as counsel and chairman or party-arbitrator in arbitral fora all over the world.
Charles also has 10 years’ membership on the Board of Trustees of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
Posts by: Charles Adams
Can defendants use anti-SLAPP statutes to dismiss meritorious trade secrets misappropriation lawsuits? A recent decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas suggests not.
Numerous states have passed some form of anti-SLAPP legislation to prevent parties from using litigation as a tool to silence individuals from exercising their First Amendment rights. Texas, in particular, enacted the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”) back in 2011 to “protect citizens from retaliatory lawsuits that seek to silence or intimidate them for exercising their rights in connection with matters of public concern.” The TCPA provides an avenue for individuals to summarily dispose of such lawsuits designed to chill their First Amendment rights. READ MORE