<an injunction period under law. We are not talking about patent infringement for April 13th, but rather Lexar wants an injunction based on technology information they shared with SanDisk which is not feasible. The punishment was awarded through the $465 million that they got but there is 0 chance that a judge will put an injunction on Apple product, fuji, or any other Toshiba related products. Again, this is not the patent infringement case so it ain't happenin'>
That is absolutely 100% FALSE!! If you would take off your sandisk pom poms and actually read the Judge's Order denying Toshiba's Motion for Summary Judgement, you would learn a thing or two. For example:
Defendants contend that because all the trade secrets that were allegedly misappropriated have been in the public doma n for more than four years,an injunction is not available as a matter of law."[W ]hen the trade secret has ceased to exist,an injunction may "be continued for an additional period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation ."See Cal.Civ .Code � 3426 ..2(a)
Even if Plaintiff's allege d trade secrets do not qualify as a "trade secret"under the UTSA (or assuming Plaintiff's UCL claim based on misappropriation of trade of secrets is preempted by the UTSA),Plaintiff may still seek an injunction under the UCL for the other allegedly unfair or unlawful conduct by Defendants, e.g.,Toshiba improperly using confidential information, "abusing its position of confidence with Lexar ,and misrepresenting Toshiba's relationship with SanDisk to Lexar ...."
A person who actually READ this stuff would know that: California Business & Professions Code Section 17203 prohibits unfair competition ."Unfair competition"includes "any unlawful,unfair,or fraudulent business act or practice" and "unfair, deceptive,untrue or misleading advertising."(Cal_Bus .&Prof.Code � 17200 ..).
And that: Under the UCL,an unlawful business practice or act is an act or practice, committed pursuant to business activity,that is at the same time forbidden by law. Virtually any law can serve as the predicate for a Business and Professions Code section 17200 action; it may be civil or criminal, federal, state or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made.
Defendants are mistaken in their assumption that only a violation of a statute may form the basis for a claim under the "unlawful" prong of the UCL.A "court-made" law may serve as the predicate for a claim under the "unlawful" prong of the UCL.See Gafcon ,Inc.,98 Cal.App.4`'at 1425. Here,Defendants fail to provide any legal authority regarding whether a claim for breaching or aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty may serve as a predicate for the "unlawful" prong of the UCL. See Do It UrselfMoving & Storage v.Brown (1992)7 Cal .AppAth 27,35 ("a point which is merely suggested by a party's counsel, with no supporting argument or authority,is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion")(internal brackets omitted). Further,as explained supra,triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendants aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty.