Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04272/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04272-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

30

31

32

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APP FOR EXTENSION OF TRO, ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE / CASE NO. 5:15-CV-4272-EJD

DURIE TANGRI LLP

RAGESH K. TANGRI (SBN 159477)

rtangri@durietangri.com

JOSHUA H. LERNER (SBN 220755)

jlerner@durietangri.com

ADAM R. BRAUSA (SBN 298754)

abrausa@durietangri.com

217 Leidesdorff Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 415-362-6666

Facsimile: 415-236-6300

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRATEEK JOSHI,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-CV-4272-EJD

[PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 7, 35

Case 5:15-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 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

30

31

32

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APP FOR EXTENSION OF TRO, ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE / CASE NO. 5:15-CV-4272-EJD

Good cause appearing therefor, the court finds as follows pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 65(b):

1. Based on the information provided in the instant application, Plaintiff Blackbird 

Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) will, absent temporary injunctive relief, suffer injury from the potential 

improper use of its Proprietary Information by Defendant Prateek Joshi (“Defendant”) as well as a loss of 

competitive position in conjunction with such improper use.

2. Such injury is irreparable because monetary damages for the improper use of its 

Proprietary Information and loss of competitive position will be difficult to ascertain.

3. This order was granted on an ex parte basis because time is of the essence, given the imminent 

expiration of the temporary restraining order issued by the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ex parte application for extension of the temporary restraining order 

(Docket Item No. 6) originally issued by the Santa Clara County Superior Court on August 27, 2015, and 

modified on September 4, 2015, is GRANTED as follows:

1. Pending hearing on the order to show cause issued herein, Defendant, his employees, 

agents, and/or representatives, and any and all persons acting under his direction and control are 

restrained and enjoined from, directly or indirectly, without further order of the Court or Plaintiff’s

written consent: 

a. Deleting, destroying, or altering any documents or things (including electronically 

maintained information) originating from, belonging to, or visually depicting information belonging to 

Plaintiff. This specifically includes but is not limited to copies (if any) of the following: (i) any of 

Plaintiff’s source code; (ii) anything derived from, or containing information derived from, any 

information belonging to Plaintiff.

b. Using or disclosing any of Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information, which is defined as

Case 5:15-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 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

30

31

32

3

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APP FOR EXTENSION OF TRO, ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE / CASE NO. 5:15-CV-4272-EJD

all Inventions1and all other business, technical and financial information (including, without limitation, 

the identity of and information relating to customers or employees) that Defendant developed, learned or 

obtained during the term of his employment that relate to Plaintiff or the business or demonstrably 

anticipated business of Plaintiff or that are received by or for Plaintiff in confidence. This includes 

selling any services or products offered at www.plutosearch.com that incorporate or are based on 

Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information.

2. Defendant is ordered to appear before the undersigned at 10:00 a.m. on October 6, 2015, 

to show cause why a preliminary injunction incorporating the temporary restraining order specified 

above should not issue. Any memorandum in opposition to the order to show cause shall not exceed 10 

pages in length and shall be filed and served on or before September 28, 2015. Any reply to the 

opposition shall not exceed 6 pages in length and shall be filed and served on or before October 1, 2015.

The temporary restraining order specified above shall remain in effect until 2:55 p.m. on October 

6, 2015. Plaintiff’s companion ex parte application (Docket Item No. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT.

 

1

“Inventions” is defined as all inventions (whether or not patentable), works of authorship, mask works, 

designs, know-how, ideas and information made or conceived or reduced to practice, in whole or in part, 

by Defendant during the term of his employment with Plaintiff to and only to the fullest extent allowed 

by California Labor Code Section 2870, which provides:

Application of provision providing that employee shall assign or offer 

to assign rights in invention to employer.

(a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that 

an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an 

invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the 

employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the 

employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information 

except for those inventions that either:

(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the 

invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated 

research or development of the employer; or

(2) Result from any work performed by the employee for his 

employer.

(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports 

to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from 

being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against 

the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

Case 5:15-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 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

30

31

32

4

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APP FOR EXTENSION OF TRO, ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE / CASE NO. 5:15-CV-4272-EJD

This amended order replaces the temporary restraining order issued on September 22, 2015 

(Docket Item No. 15). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2015, at 5:38 p.m.

________________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 09/30/15 Page 4 of 4