Appellants appealed from the order entered by the Superior Court

 

Procedural Posture

Appellants appealed from the order entered by the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California) dismissing appellants' action against respondents. The court dismissed the unfair competition and false advertising complaint based on its finding that jurisdiction for the action rested in Canada.

Overview

A civil trial lawyer represents a client, by defending them in a court of law or in legal proceedings, before a judge. Appellants filed an unfair competition and false advertising complaint against respondents. The trial court dismissed the action on the basis that due to a contractual forum selection clause, jurisdiction for the action rested in Quebec, Canada. The appellate court reversed. Respondent, which was not a party to the agreement containing the forum selection clause, had no standing to assert the clause where it made no showing that it was either an intended third party beneficiary to the agreement or was so closely involved in the agreement or associated with a party to the transaction as to be functionally equivalent to that party. Respondent had no relationship with any party at the time the agreement containing the forum selection clause was signed, and had no involvement in any transaction surrounding the signing of the agreement.

Outcome

Motion to dismiss was reversed. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that respondent had standing to seek dismissal based upon a contractual forum selection clause.

 

Procedural Posture

Defendant in copyright infringement case filed summary judgment claiming plaintiff's copyright was weak and substantial similarity test did not apply. Defendant also claimed state law claims were preempted by copyright law.

Overview

Plaintiff brought action alleging state law claims and copyright infringement by defendant of database images. On motion for summary judgment, the court held that the infringement test for plaintiff's weak copyright was: only if defendant had virtually identically copied plaintiff's expressive work would infringement be found. One must first parse the completely unprotectable elements and then apply the test to remainder; then apply the test to the whole object. Court could not find that the two were virtually identical. Defendant conceded violation as to some images and damages at trial would be determined on "value of use" theory. To extent the databases were not publicly disseminated at time defendant allegedly over-distributed them, a claim of breach of the parties' non-disclosure agreement was not preempted. To the extent that plaintiff publicly disclosed work by commercial sale, there could be no breach of confidence for defendant's disclosure, or unfair competition.

Outcome

Defendant was awarded summary judgment on the copyright claims with the exception of that claim pertaining to the admitted dissemination. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on state claims granted in part and denied in part. Copyright law did not preempt breach of non-disclosure agreement.