Legal Opinion
FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 15, 2009No. B209964PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
YEGAN, P. J.
Appellants FLIR Systems, Inc. (FLIR), and Indigo Systems Corporation (Indigo) appeal from a judgment and postjudgment order awarding respondents William Parrish and Timothy Fitzgibbons $1,641,216.78 in attorney fees and costs in a trade secret action. (Civ. Code, § 3426 et seq.) The trial court found that the action was filed and maintained in bad faith within the meaning of section 3426.4 of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. We affirm.
Facts
Indigo manufactures and sells microbolometers. A microbolometer is a device used in connection with infrared cameras, night vision, and…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Pepsico, Inc., a Corporation v. William E. Redmond, Jr., and the Quaker Oats Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Zamos v. StroudCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Whyte v. Schlage Lock CompanyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Smith v. Selma Community HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Parrish v. Latham & WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Transport Insurance v. TIG InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2018
- SASCO v. Rosendin Electric, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.