184 Cal. App. 4th 210 - Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman · Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville · 20 Cal. 4th 163 - Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. · Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. · 29 Cal. 4th 1134 - Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided, this title does not supersede any statute relating to misappropriation of a trade secret, or any statute otherwise regulating trade secrets, (b) This title does not affect (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, (2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or (3) criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A patent protects an idea, i.e., an invention, against appropriation by others. Trade secret law does not protect ideas as such. Indeed, a trade secret may consist of something we would not ordinarily consider an idea (a conceptual datum) at all, but more a fact (an empirical datum), such as a customer’s preferences, or the location of a mineral deposit. In either case, the trade secret is not the idea or fact itself, but information tending to communicate (disclose) the idea or fact to another. Trade secret law, in short, protects only the right to control the dissemination of information. It is critical to any CU-TSA cause of action—and any defense—that the information claimed to have been misappropriated be clearly identified.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.