Intellectual Property

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Intellectual Property, Litigation

VIP Products v. Jack Daniel’s — Dog-toy parody does not tarnish famous whiskey marks

automatic / August 4, 2026

The Ninth Circuit vacated Jack Daniel's injunction because its evidence did not show that the Bad Spaniels parody was likely to harm the reputation of its famous marks.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Business Transactions, Intellectual Property, Litigation

Amazon v. Perplexity AI — User-directed shopping agent likely does not “access” Amazon under hacking laws

automatic / August 4, 2026

The Ninth Circuit vacated an injunction against Perplexity's shopping assistant because users, not the AI company, likely accessed Amazon's computers.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Business Transactions, Intellectual Property, Litigation

Multiple Energy Technologies v. Casden — Corporate officer keeps interference immunity despite self-interest

automatic / July 30, 2026

A corporate officer does not lose California agent immunity merely because actions benefiting the company also advance the officer’s own financial interests.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Business Transactions, Intellectual Property, Litigation

Comet Technologies USA v. XP Power — Ninth Circuit Vacates $40 Million Trade Secret Verdict Over Burden-of-Proof Error

automatic / July 14, 2026

The Ninth Circuit vacated a $40 million jury verdict for semiconductor component maker Comet Technologies and ordered a new trial after finding that the district court erroneously placed the burden of proving "ready ascertainability" of alleged trade secrets on XP Power rather than on Comet, in violation of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act.

4th District Court of Appeal, Business Transactions, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law

Guild Mortgage v. CrossCountry Mortgage — Court Revives Claims Against Rival That Orchestrated Branch Defection, Rejects CUTSA Displacement

automatic / May 27, 2026

The Fourth District revives claims against a rival mortgage company that allegedly orchestrated a branch defection scheme, holding that all employees owe a duty of loyalty and that CUTSA does not displace interference or computer fraud claims.

California Supreme Court, Intellectual Property, Litigation

J.M. v. Illuminate Education — California Supreme Court Redefines Data Breach Liability Under the CMIA

automatic / May 14, 2026

The California Supreme Court held that a CMIA breach occurs when medical data is exposed to a significant risk of unauthorized access — rejecting the prior 'actually viewed' standard and disapproving three Court of Appeal decisions.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Intellectual Property, Litigation

Vericool World v. Igloo Products Corp. — Ninth Circuit Holds “First to Market” Claims Not Actionable Under the Lanham Act

automatic / May 6, 2026

The Ninth Circuit held that “first to market” advertising claims are not actionable as false advertising under the Lanham Act, ruling that such claims concern the origin of an idea rather than observable product characteristics.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property

Doe 1 v. Meta Platforms — Ninth Circuit holds Section 230 bars Rohingya plaintiffs’ claims that Facebook incited Myanmar violence, with two judges urging the court to reconsider the breadth of platform immunity

automatic / April 28, 2026

The Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of Rohingya plaintiffs' claims that Facebook's design enabled the spread of anti-Rohingya content in Myanmar, holding that Section 230 immunity bars the suit, with three judges concurring to urge en banc reconsideration of the court's Section 230 doctrine.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Intellectual Property, Litigation

Brown v. Salcido — Ninth Circuit denies untimely intervention by absent class members trying to revive damages claims after Google Incognito settlement

automatic / April 20, 2026

The Ninth Circuit affirms denial of intervention by 185 Chrome users who tried to enter the Google Incognito mode privacy class action to appeal the damages-class denial after settlement, holding the motion untimely under Rule 24.