HOME MEMBERSHIP CALENDAR JUDICIAL COUNCIL 

FORMS KNOW YOUR 

JUDGES DAILY 

EBRIEFS LA LAWYER






LACBA on Facebook.
LACBA on Twitter.
LACBA on LinkedIn.



  Los Angeles Lawyer
The Magazine of the Los Angeles County Bar Association
 
 

September 2013     MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 227: Secret Preemption

 
 

Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
MCLE Test
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055 

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-assessment activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.

 
  Test Sheet
 
 

Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*  

1. Trade secret law is a traditional province of the federal government rather than the states.
 True.
 False.

2. The model Uniform Trade Secrets Act was drafted to provide more consistent trade secret protection among the states.
 True.
 False.

3. Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corporation holds that a plaintiff may make a trade secret claim under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) or California's laws protecting proprietary customer lists.
 True.
 False.

4. Silvaco holds that if an alleged trade secret does not fall within the CUTSA's definition of "trade secret," a factual determination may be made regarding whether the trade secret claim may be preserved.
 True.
 False.

5. Under Silvaco, the CUTSA's preemption of trade secret claims also preempts other statutory or common law claims.
 True.
 False.

6. Silvaco does not specify whether trade secret claims may be preserved if the CUTSA's definition of "trade secret" is not met.
 True.
 False.

7. Under Silvaco, there can be no property rights for otherwise commercially valuable information that does meet the CUTSA's definition of a trade secret.
 True.
 False.

8. Silvaco's holding on the scope of CUTSA preemption of common law and statutory remedies rests on analysis of the policy underlying the CUTSA and its express savings clauses.
 True.
 False.

9. Silvaco holds that preemption under the CUTSA is a fact-specific issue.
 True.
 False.

10. Silvaco holds that preemption under the CUTSA depends on whether the act's definition of "trade secret" is met.
 True.
 False.

11. ThinkVillage-Kiwi, LLC v. Adobe Systems as well as First Advantage Background Services Corporation v. Private Eyes, Inc., agree with Silvaco that no actionable claim exists when it is based on information having protectable value beyond that of a trade secret as defined in the CUTSA.
 True.
 False.

12. In K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc., the court rejected the plaintiff's argument for a narrow interpretation of preemption.
 True.
 False.

13. MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation notes that the scope of the CUTSA's preemption "remains a somewhat unsettled area of California law."
 True.
 False.

14. Amron International Diving Supply, Inc. v. Hydrolinx Diving Communications, Inc., arguably holds that the preemption issue cannot be addressed at the pleading stage.
 True.
 False.

15. Cases that follow Silvaco's reasoning should find that the preemption issue must be decided at the pleading stage.
 True.
 False.

16. Reeves v. Hanon may be cited to argue that misappropriation of trade secrets can form the basis of an intentional interference claim without being limited by any preemption.
 True.
 False.

17. Silvaco arguably does not limit the application of Business and Professions Code Section 17200.
 True.
 False.

18. Silvaco arguably undermines case law concerning proprietary interest in customer lists.
 True.
 False.

19. Under Silvaco, a plaintiff may be left without remedy for conversion of confidential business information.
 True.
 False.

20. Under Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Avantil Corporation, even after passage of the CUTSA, a cause of action for common law trade secrets misappropriation survived as to pre-CUTSA fact patterns.
 True.
 False.

Address and Billing

After submitting your answers you will be asked to enter your name, address, and payment information on the next screen. Once you have submitted the current form, you will be switched to a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet.

If you do not wish to complete this transaction over the Internet you should print this page and send it to the address listed in Step 3 of the instructions at the top of this page.


 
Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.

 


 
   
 

Copyright 2013, Los Angeles Lawyermagazine. All Rights Reserved.

 
   
Los Angeles Lawyer
 
 
 
 
       
   
General Information
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
   
 
 
 
Online MCLE
 
 
 
 
Plus: Earn MCLE Credit