Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02366/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02366-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAN-WOONG PARK,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02366-BLF (VKD)

Case No. 16-cv-02367-BLF (VKD)

ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER 

DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 62

Plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“PI”) and defendant Chan-Woong Park disagree 

regarding the terms of the protective order that should be entered in two related actions: Power 

Integrations, Inc. v. Park, Case. No. 16-cv-02366-BLF and Power Integrations, Inc. v. Park, Case 

No. 16-cv-02367-BLF. The parties filed a joint discovery letter describing their points of 

disagreement and attaching their respective proposed protective orders.

The Court finds this dispute suitable for resolution without a hearing.

I. BACKGROUND

In these related cases, PI alleges that Mr. Park’s employment agreement with PI required 

him to assign to the company all inventions he developed during and after his employment. PI 

claims that during and after his employment, Mr. Park used PI’s proprietary information to file

and obtain patents for himself in the United States and in South Korea and then used those patents 

and technology to interfere with PI’s relationships with its customers. See Dkt. Nos. 61, 62.1

Citing Mr. Park’s past alleged misuse of PI’s proprietary information, PI advocates for a 

two-tier protective order based on this District’s Model Protective Order for Litigation Involving 

 

1 Unless otherwise specified, all citations to the docket refer to Case No. 16-cv-02366-BLF.

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 65 Filed 10/11/18 Page 1 of 7
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets, with additional proposed 

restrictions. Mr. Park responds that, while PI’s actions against him concern alleged misuse of 

proprietary information, the discovery in these cases is unlikely to encompass sensitive 

confidential information, and for that reason, a protective order based on this District’s Model 

Protective Order for Standard Litigation is sufficient. Each party has filed its respective, proposed 

form of protective with the Court.

The Court addresses each point of disagreement below. The Court will enter a separate 

protective order that reflects its resolution of each of the disputed points.

II. PROTECTIVE ORDER PROVISIONS

A. Restrictions on Mr. Park’s Access to PI’s Confidential Information

Both the Model Protective Order for Standard Litigation (“Standard Order”) and the Model 

Protective Order for Litigation Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information 

and/or Trade Secrets (“Patent Order”) contain provisions that protect “confidential” information

from public disclosure or use. The key difference between the Standard Order and the Patent 

Order is that the latter also includes a provision that protects “highly confidential–attorneys’ eyes 

only” information from disclosure to the receiving party itself, and restricts access to such 

information to the receiving party’s outside counsel (as well as other specified entities). PI argues 

that such a provision is necessary and desirable because it expects to produce “proprietary 

information” in these cases that it does not wish Mr. Park to see. Mr. Park is skeptical that PI will 

produce any information that qualifies for such protection, and argues further that he will need to 

have access to the information PI does produce in order to prepare his defenses.

The parties are currently engaged in fact discovery with expert discovery to follow. It is 

not possible for the Court to know what the full scope of fact and expert discovery may be. As it 

appears there is at least a possibility that both parties may seek and produce information that meets 

the criteria for “highly confidential–attorneys’ eyes only” information, the protective order should 

include provisions that address such information. Accordingly, the Patent Order, with its two-tier 

confidentiality protections, will serve as the basis for the protective order in these cases.

The parties are advised that the “highly confidential–attorneys’ eyes only” designation is 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 65 Filed 10/11/18 Page 2 of 7
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reserved for “extremely sensitive” confidential information, the disclosure of which to another 

party or non-party, “would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by 

less restrictive means.” See Model Patent Order, sec. 2.7. Blanket designations and overly 

restrictive designations are improper and must be avoided. A party’s failure to comply with the 

Court’s orders, Civil Local Rules, and other applicable legal requirements regarding the 

designation of material as “confidential” or “highly confidential–attorneys’ eyes only” may 

subject that party to sanctions. See Humphreys v. Regents of the University of California, Case 

No. C-04-03808 SI (EDL), 2006 WL 3020902 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2006); Model Patent Order, sec. 

5.1. 

In addition, if Mr. Park believes that PI’s designation of particular information or particular 

categories of information as “highly confidential–attorneys’ eyes only” prevents him from 

adequately preparing his defenses, that concern may be brought to the Court’s attention by means 

of the discovery dispute resolution procedure set forth in the undersigned’s Standing Order for 

Civil Cases.

B. Prosecution Bar

PI’s proposed protective order includes a “prosecution bar” that prohibits anyone who 

receives “confidential” or “highly confidential–attorneys’ eyes only” information from being 

involved in “the prosecution of patents or patent applications relating to the field of power 

conversion and management” until two years after final termination of the actions. See Model 

Patent Order, sec. 8. PI says this bar is necessary protection against Mr. Park’s activities. Mr. 

Park contends that such a broad prosecution bar is unnecessary, given the nature of the 

information likely to be produced in this case, and that it will interfere with his ability to retain 

qualified expert witnesses.

The prosecution bar proposed by PI is exceptionally broad. While such a bar might be 

appropriate in some cases, it is not justified here, particularly given the protection the “highly 

confidential–attorneys’ eyes only” designation affords PI against access by Mr. Park to its 

sensitive technical information. Mr. Park’s concerns with respect to the impact of a prosecution 

bar on his ability to retain expert witnesses are also well-taken. 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 65 Filed 10/11/18 Page 3 of 7
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The protective order will not include a prosecution bar. However, nothing in this order or 

in the protective order entered separately precludes a party from objecting on a case-by-case basis 

to a proposed expert witness whose prosecution-related activities pose an undue risk of misuse of 

a party’s confidential technical information.

C. Export Control

The Patent Order includes a model provision that references existing laws and regulations 

governing the export of technical data outside the United States. It imposes on a producing party 

the obligation to identify technical information subject to such export controls. PI says the 

protective order should include such a provision; Mr. Park contends that it is highly unlikely that 

export controls would apply to any material produced in these cases and the provision is therefore 

unnecessary.

As with the issue of confidentiality designations, it is not possible for the Court to know 

whether any material produced in discovery will be subject to export controls. It is at least 

possible that qualifying technical information will be produced, and one of the parties who may 

receive such production is outside of the United States. Accordingly, the Court agrees with PI that 

the protective order should include a provision placing the burden of identifying qualifying 

technical information on the producing party.

D. Expert Witness Disclosure Procedure

PI asks for a modification to section 7.4 of the Patent Order that would require each party 

to advise the other in writing if it wishes to disclose information designated “confidential” under 

the protective order to an expert witness. Section 7.4 presently requires such advisement only 

with respect to the proposed disclosure of “highly confidential–attorneys’ eyes only” information

to an expert witness. Mr. Park does not specifically address this proposed modification. The 

Court will adopt PI’s proposed modification. 

E. Expert Witness Criteria

The Patent Order includes a provision that defines an “Expert” as:

a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 

pertinent to the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its 

counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 65 Filed 10/11/18 Page 4 of 7
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

action, (2) is not a past or current employee of a Party or of a Party’s 

competitor, and (3) at the time of retention, is not anticipated to 

become an employee of a Party or of a Party’s competitor.

See Model Patent Order, sec. 2.6. Mr. Park objects that the second and third clauses of this 

provision unfairly limit his ability to retain experts, as many of them will be either past or current 

employees of PI or a competitor of PI. He proposes that these limiting clauses should encompass

only an expert’s current or anticipated employment by a party’s competitor, so that the provision 

reads as follows:

a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 

pertinent to the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its 

counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this 

action, (2) is not a current employee of a Party’s competitor, and (3) 

at the time of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of 

a Party’s competitor.

PI does not specifically address Mr. Park’s proposed modification.

The Court accepts Mr. Park’s representation (which PI does not dispute) that many 

potential experts will be current, past, or future employees of PI or its competitors, and that the 

broader restriction in the model provision may make it difficult for one or both parties to retain 

experts in the relevant field. To accommodate the competing interests addressed by this provision 

the Court will adopt a definition of “Expert” that includes a restriction encompassing current and 

anticipated employees of a party and a party’s competitors (as in the model provision), but that 

does not include a restriction encompassing past employees of a party or a party’s competitors. 

However, nothing in this order or in the protective order precludes a party from objecting on a 

case-by-case basis to a proposed expert witness whose past employment with a party or a party’s

competitor poses an undue risk of misuse of a party’s confidential technical information.

F. Use of Protected Material in Other Proceedings

Both parties propose revisions to the Standard Order or the Patent Order that address the 

use of protected material in other proceedings. PI advocates for an additional sentence that states

that protected material may not be used in “other judicial, administrative, or patent proceedings in 

the United States or South Korea.” Mr. Park does not object to this language but suggests that it 

should be modified to make clear that the parties may agree that protected material may be used in 

other proceedings if they wish. In addition, he suggests that the Court should permit protected 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 65 Filed 10/11/18 Page 5 of 7
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

material produced in Case No. 16-cv-02366-BLF to be used in the related case, Case No. 16-cv02367-BLF, and vice versa. PI does not specifically address Mr. Park’s suggestions.

The Standard Order and the Patent Order already contain prohibitions on the use of 

protected material for purposes other than prosecution, defense or attempted settlement of the case 

at issue. However, as the parties appear to agree that some further elaboration of this point is 

warranted or at least not objectionable, and as PI has not objected to Mr. Park’s suggested 

qualifications, the Court will adopt Mr. Park’s proposed revisions summarized above. The Court 

will not adopt Mr. Park’s additional suggestion that the permitted use of protected material extend 

to “any litigation arising out of or resulting from this litigation and the above related case.”

G. Judicial Intervention

PI proposes revisions to section 6.3 of the Patent Order that would require the party 

challenging a confidentiality designation to seek judicial intervention. Mr. Park objects to this 

revision.

The proposed revision is moot, as the Court requires disputes regarding discovery matters, 

including disputes concerning confidentiality designations, to be brought to the Court’s attention 

pursuant to the discovery dispute resolution procedures in the undersigned Standing Order for 

Civil Cases. Those procedures require a joint submission by the parties.

H. Other Provisions

1. Designated House Counsel

The Patent Order includes model provisions that permit designated in-house counsel 

employed by a party to have access to the other party’s protected material. PI says these 

provisions are unnecessary because Mr. Park is an individual and does not have “house counsel.” 

PI does not say whether it has “house counsel.” Mr. Park does not specifically address this 

proposed modification. The Court will adopt PI’s proposed modification.

2. Inadvertent Production

PI seeks revisions to section 12 of the Patent Order regarding inadvertent production of 

privileged documents or information, citing Mr. Park’s “litigious nature and history of challenging 

PI on numerous fronts.” Mr. Park objects to the proposed revisions. The Court is not persuaded 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 65 Filed 10/11/18 Page 6 of 7
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that any revision to the model provision is warranted. The Court will not adopt PI’s proposed

modification.

3. Liquidated Damages and Attorneys’ Fees

PI says that the protective order should include a liquidated damages provision and a 

provision for the recovery of attorneys’ fees in the event a party violates the terms of the 

protective order. This proposal overreaches. The Court will not adopt PI’s proposed provisions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 65 Filed 10/11/18 Page 7 of 7