Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04770/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04770-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICREL INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

Delaware corporation, MICHAEL R. HSING,

JAMES C. MOYER, and DOES 1-20

inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04770 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2005: 

The Court tentatively GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“MPS”)’s motion to dismiss the state law claims in Plaintiff

Micrel, Inc.’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The Court tentatively GRANTS

Defendants’ motion as to Micrel’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets pursuant to

California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. and for common law

misappropriation and tentatively DENIES the motion as to Micrel’s claims for breach of

confidentiality agreements and for violations of California Business and Professions Code

Section 17200. The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, 

Case 3:04-cv-04770-JSW Document 96 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the

parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the

Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to

make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are

ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional

briefing. See N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The parties shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions: 

(1) Micrel alleges that although Michael R. Hsing told Micrel that he was leaving so he

could return to graduate school, he actually left Micrel and founded MPS three weeks

later. (SAC ¶ 1.) When did Micrel learn that Hsing founded MPS and did not return to

graduate school in Florida? 

(2) Micrel alleges that although James C. Moyer told Micrel that he was leaving because he

wanted to retire, he actually joined MPS within weeks of leaving Micrel. (SAC ¶ 1.) 

When did Micrel learn that Moyer joined MPS? 

(3) Micrel alleges that MPS gained knowledge of Micrel’s proprietary information through

Cynthia Moyer, James Moyer’s daughter. When did Micrel learn that Ms. Moyer shared

Micrel’s proprietary information with MPS?

(4) How similar are cold cathode fluorescent lamps (“CCFL”) in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,114,814

(“the ’814 Patent”) to electro-luminescent lamp drivers (“ELLD”)? Would the issuance

of the ’814 patent regarding CCFLs have put Micrel on notice that the defendants used

or disclosed Micrel’s confidential information regarding ELLDs?

(5) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,222,278 (“the ’278 Patent”) states in the detailed description of the

preferred embodiment that the prior art structure of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,517,046 (“the

’046 Patent”) has been modified in the invention disclosed in the ’278 patent. Given this

statement, how would the issuance of the ’046 patent have put Micrel on notice that the

defendants used or disclosed Micrel’s confidential information? 

Case 3:04-cv-04770-JSW Document 96 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

(6) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04770-JSW Document 96 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 3