Cite as 831 F.2d 903 (9th Cir. 1987)
97 Cal.App.3d at 318–20, 158 Cal.Rptr. at 709–10. To evade this doctrine, Aliotti argues that Dakin, by employing her, would “put her ideas to work for them.” Even if we accept the premise that Dakin assumed that by hiring Aliotti it could obtain designs that apparently belonged to Favorite Things, the uncontradicted evidence indicates that Aliotti displayed the dolls before Dakin executives suggested that their company might consider hiring her. See Desny, 46 Cal.2d at 739, 299 P.2d at 270 (observing that no contract will be implied where an “idea man” “blurts out his idea without first having made his bargain,” even if the idea has been conveyed with some hope of entering into a contract). Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment on appellants’ claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. See Faris, 97 Cal.App.3d at 318, 58 Cal.Rptr. at 709.
To prevail on their claim for breach of confidence, appellants must show that: (1) they conveyed confidential and novel information; (2) Dakin had knowledge that the information was being disclosed in confidence; (3) there was an understanding between Dakin and appellants that the confidence be maintained; and (4) there was disclosure or use in violation of the understanding. See Tele-Count Engineers v. Pacific Tel. & Tel., 168 Cal.App.3d 455, 462–66, 214 Cal.Rptr. 276, 279–82 (1985). Constructive notice of confidentiality is not sufficient. Id. at 463–64, 214 Cal.Rptr. at 280–81.
Because three of the Ding-A-Saurs were already on the market, Aliotti could not have conveyed confidential information concerning those dolls. Furthermore, she presented no testimony that Dakin knew that the information was disclosed in confidence or that the parties agreed that the confidences would be maintained. Only constructive knowledge of confidentiality may be inferred from Shelley Aliotti’s testimony that she was sure there had been some discussion at the meeting about keeping the ideas confidential because “[i]t was presented to them under … that these were our ideas, and we were introducing them because they were considering buying the company.” Thus, appellants’ claim for breach of confidence must fail. See id.
CONCLUSION
The district court properly granted summary judgment to Dakin on appellants’ claims for copyright infringement, breach of an implied-in-fact contract, and breach of confidence.
Affirmed.
In re SHORELINE CONCRETE COMPANY, INC., Debtor.
SHORELINE CONCRETE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant/Appellant
and
Harold Heath, Trustee.
No. 86–4412.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 1987.[1]
Decided Nov. 4, 1987.
- ↑ The panel grants appellee’s motion to submit the case without oral argument.
