Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc.

I. INTRODUCTION

16 Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Krisp Technologies (“Krisp”) and Plaintiff and 17 Counterclaim Defendant Sanas AI (“Sanas”), two technology competitors and almost- 18 collaborators, move to dismiss each other’s claims and counterclaims, respectively. Sanas has 19 adequately pled trade secret misappropriation, co-inventorship and co-ownership, and false 20 advertising claims against Krisp. Accordingly, Krisp’s motion to dismiss as to these claims is 21 denied as set forth below. 22 Sanas’ motion as to Krisp’s state-law counterclaims is denied in part as well because Krisp 23 has adequately pled violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17043 and §§ 17200 et. seq. However, 24 since allegations of violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17044 cannot survive when based on a 25 defendant freely giving away a product, Sanas’ motion to dismiss is granted as to count three of 26 Krisp’s counterclaims as set forth below. 27 II. BACKGROUND1 Sanas and Krisp are competitors in the market for voice communication software. Specifically, their technology improves phone and video call conversations in real-time by converting…