Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

ALTA DEVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-00404-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S

OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S 

EXPERT DR. LEBBY

Re: Dkt. No. 50

In this trade secret dispute, defendant LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) wishes to use Dr. 

Michael Lebby as an expert witness in this case. Plaintiff Alta Devices, Inc. (“Alta”) objects to 

the disclosure of its highly confidential information to Dr. Lebby. The parties filed a joint 

discovery letter seeking resolution of this dispute. The Court finds this matter suitable for 

resolution without a hearing.

I. OBJECTIONS

Alta objects to Dr. Lebby on two grounds. First, Alta argues that Dr. Lebby does not 

qualify as a permissible expert under section 2.7 of the protective order in this case because he 

used to work for Translucent, which Alta claims is one of its competitors, and because Alta 

expects he will become an employee in the future of IQE, which Alta says is another one of its

competitors. Dkt. No. 50 at 5. Second, Alta says that because Dr. Lebby is required to cooperate 

with IQE in connection with the prosecution of patents in the same field as the prosecution bar,

disclosure of Alta’s protected material to him creates a substantial risk of disclosure or misuse of 

Alta’s protected material. Id. at 6. Alta bears the burden of proving that the risk of harm that the 

disclosure would entail outweighs LGE’s need to disclose the protected material to Dr. Lebby. 

Dkt. No. 41, sec. 7.4(c).

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 54 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 5
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

II. DISCUSSION

A. Dr. Lebby’s Past and Future Employment

Under section 2.7 of the protective order, an expert to whom a party wishes to disclose 

another party’s protected material may not be a past or current employee of a party or a party’s 

competitor and, at the time the expert is retained, may not be anticipated to become an employee 

of a party or a party’s competitor. Id., sec. 2.7. Dr. Lebby meets these criteria.

LGE represents, without contradiction, that when Dr. Lebby worked for Translucent from 

2010 to 2013, that company did not manufacture gallium arsenide (GaAs) thin film solar cells, and 

that the company is no longer in business. Dkt. No. 50 at 3. In response, Alta says only that 

Translucent was a competitor of Alta “in the development of photovoltaic devices.” Id. at 5. 

Given the nature of the alleged trade secrets at issue, which informed the Court’s prior decision on 

the scope of the prosecution bar (section 8), the Court finds that Alta defines “competitor” too 

broadly. Dr. Lebby’s past employment with Translucent is not disqualifying because Translucent 

was not a competitor of Alta for purposes of section 2.7 of the protective order.

Alta observes that IQE acquired or exclusively licensed Translucent’s patent portfolio, 

including patents and patent applications on which Dr. Lebby is a named inventor, and is therefore 

also a competitor of Alta. Alta anticipates that Dr. Lebby will become an employee of IQE

because IQE acquired Translucent’s patent portfolio, other former employees of Translucent have 

gone to work for IQE, some of these former employees are co-inventors with Dr. Lebby on some 

of the acquired patents, and Dr. Lebby has a continuing obligation to cooperate with IQE in the 

prosecution of patents on which he is a named inventor. Id. at 5-6. LGE acknowledges that Dr. 

Lebby consulted for IQE for three months, but says that he has no present or contemplated 

employment relationship with IQE. None of Alta’s assertions supports the inference that Dr. 

Lebby is anticipated to become an employee of IQE in the future. In addition, its assertions that

IQE is a competitor of Alta appear to be based solely on Alta’s acquisition of certain patent rights 

from Translucent rather than any information about IQE’s business. For this reason, Alta also has 

not shown that IQE is a competitor of Alta for purposes of section 2.7.

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 54 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 5
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

B. Dr. Lebby’s Patent Prosecution Obligations and Ongoing Work

Alta claims that Dr. Lebby’s ongoing work “in the field of photovoltaic device 

manufacturing using MOCVD processes involving GaAs creates a substantial risk of disclosure or 

use of Alta’s Protected Material,” if he is permitted access to such material. Dkt. No. 50 at 6. 

According to Alta, Dr. Lebby’s work includes his obligation to cooperate in the prosecution of 

Translucent patents and patent applications on which Dr. Lebby is a co-inventor and which are 

now owned by IQE. In addition, Alta cites Dr. Lebby’s expertise in the field, the large number of 

patents on which he is an inventor, and his history as a “serial entrepreneur” as posing particular 

risks to Alta’s protected material. Id. at 7. 

LGE points out that the protective order refers to “the manufacture of gallium arsenide 

thin-film solar cells” as the relevant subject matter for purposes of the prosecution bar—not 

photovoltaic device manufacturing generally. LGE argues that none of the patents or patent 

applications on which Dr. Lebby is a named inventor relate to the manufacture of GaAs thin film 

solar cells, and explains how the subject matter of his prior work differs from the manufacture of 

GaAs thin film solar cells. LGE further argues that Dr. Lebby’s obligation to assist IQE in the 

prosecution of the Translucent patents and patent applications is the usual obligation to cooperate

that typically accompanies an inventor’s assignment of rights and does not require the disclosure 

of any non-public information he may learn in confidence. Id. at 4. 

An expert’s obligations to assist with the prosecution of pending patent applications may 

well place him or her in a position where exposure to non-public information of another party 

could result in the inadvertent use of such information in aid of that patent prosecution. Likewise, 

an expert’s ongoing work and professional obligations may create a similar risk of inadvertent use 

or disclosure. But here, the risk of improper use or disclosure is low for several reasons.

First, the Court is not persuaded that the Translucent patents and patent applications on 

which Dr. Lebby is a named inventor are so close to the subject matter of Alta’s alleged trade 

secrets that Dr. Lebby could not help but misuse Alta’s protected material in those applications. 

Alta does not explain how “photovoltaic device manufacturing using MOCVD processes 

involving GaAs” compares to the manufacture of gallium arsenide thin-film solar cells, and Alta 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 54 Filed 10/16/18 Page 3 of 5
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

does not dispute LGE’s explanation of the differences between the two. Dr. Lebby’s patents and 

patent applications do not appear to concern the manufacture of GaAs thin film solar cells, and Dr. 

Lebby is not engaged in the kind of activity that falls under the prosecution bar.

Second, Alta’s suggestion that Dr. Lebby has a contractual obligation to disclose to IQE 

any technology improvements of which he learns, from whatever source, even if he learns those 

improvements in confidence and subject to a court order not to disclose the information in this 

case, is simply not plausible. Rather, Dr. Lebby’s obligations appear to be the usual obligations of 

an assignee to cooperate in prosecution and disclose information bearing on his own inventions.

Finally, the Court is not persuaded that Dr. Lebby’s proficiency and expertise in the field 

of photovoltaic devices and related technologies makes disclosure of Alta’s protected material 

especially hazardous. To the contrary, in addition to signing Exhibit A to the protective order and 

agreeing to be bound by its terms, including the prosecution bar, LGE represents that Dr. Lebby is 

prepared to submit a declaration attesting that: 

1. he has no ongoing work in the field of GaAs thin film solar cell manufacturing; 

2. he has no present or contemplated employment relationship or affiliation with 

Translucent or IQE; and 

3. he will not work in the field of GaAs thin-film solar cell manufacturing until two years 

after final termination of this action. 

Id. at 4. Moreover, LGE has provided specific reasons supporting its need for Dr. Lebby and the 

difficulty it has already experienced retaining a qualified expert for this case. Alta’s claim that 

there are a number of other qualified experts available to LGE is not supported.

III. CONCLUSION

Having considered the parties’ joint submission, the Court finds that LGE’s need to retain 

Dr. Lebby as an expert in this case outweighs any risk of harm from disclosure of Alta’s protected 

material to Dr. Lebby, and that such risk is mitigated by the commitment Dr. Lebby has made and 

is willing to make. Dr. Lebby may be designated an expert for LGE under the protective order, 

and is authorized to have access to Alta’s protected material immediately. Within 10 court days of 

this order, Dr. Lebby must file with this Court a declaration attesting to the three matters set forth 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 54 Filed 10/16/18 Page 4 of 5
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

in the preceding paragraph.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 54 Filed 10/16/18 Page 5 of 5