Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081-50/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 33

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., 

 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY 

INSTRUCTION NO. 33

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1047 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 3
36

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 33

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

For the Northern District of California

33. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – ELEMENTS OF 

LIABILITY

I have already found that GSI entered into a contract with UMI in which UMI agreed (1) not to 

compete with GSI, directly or indirectly, for the design of a LLDRAM chip until at least April 30,

2013; (2) to protect GSI’s confidential information; and (3) that GSI would own all circuit 

schematics and associated intellectual property, excluding Project Patents and intellectual property 

developed prior to or independent from the contract between GSI and UMI, as “deliverables” under 

the contract. 

For GSI to recover from the UMI on GSI’s claim of breach of contract, you must find either of the 

following have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. UMI failed to comply with its obligation not to compete with GSI, directly or indirectly, for 

the design of an LLDRAM chip; 

2. UMI failed to protect confidential information in GSI’s schematics; or

3. UMI allowed ISSI to access and use circuit schematics and associated intellectual property

owned by GSI.

If you find that none of these statements has been proved, then your verdict must be for UMI.

On the other hand, if you find that one or more of these statements have been proved, then you 

must consider UMI’S affirmative defenses.

If you find that UMI proved any one or more of these affirmative defenses by a preponderance of 

the evidence, then your verdict must be for UMI.

However, if you find that none of these affirmative defenses have been proved, then your verdict 

must be for GSI.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1047 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 3
66

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 33

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

For the Northern District of California

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1047 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 3