Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01268/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01268-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

UNIRAM TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

MONOLITHIC SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY,

INC, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 04-1268 VRW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: INTERROGATORY NO. 12

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint meet and confer letter, filed February 8, 2006,

regarding plaintiff UniRAM Technology, Inc.'s ("UniRAM") response to defendant Taiwan

Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.'s ("TSMC") Interrogatory No. 12. Docket #154. 

Interrogatory No. 12 seeks the following: "For each trade secret that UniRAM claims TSMC

misappropriated, identify when and how UniRAM believes it was obtained by TSMC." In response,

UniRAM referred TSMC to its Second Supplemental Trade Secret Disclosure. 

TSMC argues that instead of answering when and how each alleged trade secret was

obtained by TSMC, that disclosure refers repeatedly to the same 26 documents, unidentified

discussions, and nine tape outs. In response, UniRAM argues that its disclosure describes each trade

secret in detail and, separately for each trade secret, identifies when and how that secret was first

disclosed to TSMC.

Upon review of UniRAM's disclosure, the Court finds that UniRAM failed to respond to

Interrogatory No. 12 with specificity. Specifically, UniRAM responds generally that each trade

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 155 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

secret was disclosed through "Presentations," "R&D Disclosures," "Tape Outs," and "Studies," yet

no specific documents or materials are identified. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS UniRAM to

respond to Interrogatory No. 12 by stating for each alleged trade secret, the specific disclosure

within the documents and materials in which UniRAM contends it communicated the alleged trade

secrets to TSMC and who received that communication. UniRAM shall update its response within

30 days from the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 155 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 2