This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
California Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Jasmine Networks Inc. v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc., et al.

Published: Dec. 24, 2010 | Result Date: Nov. 24, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV801411 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Santa Clara Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William N. McGrane
(McGrane PC)

Marc J. Poster

Christopher D. Sullivan
(Diamond McCarthy LLP)

Robin Meadow

Maureen A. Harrington

Anthony J. Trepel

Alana H. Rotter
(Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP)


Defendant

Charles S. Crompton III

Christopher C. Cooke

Steven M. Bauer
(Latham & Watkins LLP)

Margaret A. Tough
(Latham & Watkins LLP)

Stephen S. Wu

Matthew Rawlinson
(Latham & Watkins LLP)

Jeffrey W. Kobrick

James K. Lynch


Facts

Marvell Semiconductor Inc. is a worldwide leader in integrated silicon solutions.

Jasmine Networks Inc. filed suit against Marvell, and former Jasmine managers, Richard Sowell and Patrick Murphy, on trade secrets claims. The filing of the complaint followed negotiations by the parties whereby Marvell would use Jasmine's application-specific integration circuits and fabric switching.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that defendants misappropriated its trade secrets in violation of a nondisclosure agreement. Further, plaintiff alleged that defendants violated California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Last, plaintiff pointed to an inadvertent voicemail recording of a communication between Marvell officers and its counsel.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Marvell argued that it did not utilize or obtain any trade secrets and was not in violation of a nondisclosure agreement. Further, defendants contended that soon after filing its action, plaintiff sold its rights to the alleged trade secrets in bankruptcy proceedings and thus, had given up its ability to sue for misappropriation.

Result

The jury found in favor defendants.


#102271

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390