Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081-60/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

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

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

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT

(Re: Docket No. 1072)

Defendant United Memories, Inc. moves for entry of a revised or amended judgment.1 

UMI’s motion is GRANTED-IN-PART: UMI is correct that the court must issue findings of fact 

and conclusions of law as to Plaintiff GSI Technology, Inc.’s claim for unfair competition, but all 

other relief requested is DENIED.

I.

At the end of the trial between GSI and UMI and Defendant Integrated Silicon Solutions, 

Inc., the court instructed the jury on GSI’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and 

intentional interference with prospective economic relations against UMI and ISSI, and for breach 

of contract, fraud and false promise against UMI, and UMI and ISSI’s assorted affirmative 

defenses and bad faith contention.2 The court also instructed the jury on unfair competition, which

 

1

See Docket No. 1072-1.

2

See Docket No. 1043. See also Docket No. 1047 (amended jury instruction no. 33); Docket No. 

1050 (amended jury instructions nos. 26.1, 26.2).

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1120 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 8
2

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

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

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

was a predicate element for GSI’s TIPER claim.3

Accompanying the lengthy jury instructions was a lengthy verdict form on the five claims 

presented to the jury: misappropriation of trade secrets, TIPER, breach of contract, fraud and false 

promise, along with the affirmative defenses and bad faith contention.4 The court had previously 

ruled that it would try the jury claims first and then decide GSI’s Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

claim for unfair competition afterward based on the evidence presented during the jury trial.5

After instruction and deliberation, the jury returned its verdict: It found that UMI had 

misappropriated four trade secrets belonging to GSI and rejected UMI’s affirmative defenses to 

the misappropriation claim.6 The jury also found that ISSI had not misappropriated any trade 

secrets, that GSI’s actual loss for misappropriation was $0 and that GSI had not asserted the 

misappropriation claim in bad faith.7 On the TIPER claim, the jury found that neither UMI nor 

ISSI had engaged in unfair competition, and so neither party had intentionally interfered with 

GSI’s economic relationship with Cisco, Inc.8 On the breach of contract claim, the jury found that 

UMI had breached its contract with GSI, rejected UMI’s affirmative defenses and awarded GSI 

$532,400 in “general damages” and $421,000 in “special damages,” for a total of $953,400.9 On 

the fraud claim, the jury found that UMI had not made a false representation to GSI.

10

 On the 

 

3

See Docket No. 1043 at 31-33.

4

See Docket No. 1044.

5

See Docket No. 906 at 40:19-41:4.

6

See Docket No. 1055 at 4-9.

7

See id. at 10-14. On the verdict form given to the jury, Question 25 originally read “What was 

the amount of GSI’s general damages?” but this was corrected to “actual loss” during 

deliberations. See Docket No. 1054 at 3 (second jury note).

8

See Docket No. 1055 at 15, 19.

9

See id. at 23-26.

10 See id. at 27.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1120 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 8
3

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

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

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

false promise claim, the jury found that although UMI had made a promise to GSI, UMI had 

intended to perform this promise at the time that it made it.11

After trial, GSI and UMI filed a flurry of post-trial motions for JMOL, new trial, entry of 

judgment and attorney’s fees.12 As relevant to this motion, the court resolved the motions for 

JMOL by affirming the jury’s verdict that GSI had four trade secrets, which UMI had 

misappropriated, and affirming the jury’s verdict that UMI had breached its contract with GSI, but 

vacating the jury’s damages award on the breach of contract claim.13 

In its motion for entry of judgment, UMI argues that the verdict rendered by the jury was a 

special verdict requiring the court to apply the relevant laws to the facts found by the jury.14 UMI 

thus asks the court to do so and to enter final judgment that it was the prevailing party on all 

claims GSI raised in the course of this litigation.

II.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties further consented to the 

jurisdiction of the undersigned under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).15

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly define general verdicts, the 

law in the Ninth Circuit is that “general verdicts require the jury to apply the law to the facts, and 

therefore require legal instruction, whereas special verdicts ‘compel the jury to focus exclusively 

on its fact-finding role.’”16 “If the jury announces only its ultimate conclusions, it returns an 

ordinary general verdict; if it makes factual findings in addition to the ultimate legal conclusions, 

 

11 See Docket No. 31.

12 See Docket Nos. 1062, 1065, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074-1.

13 See Docket No. 1118.

14 See Docket No. 1072-1.

15 See Docket No. 236 at 11. 

16 Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1031 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Floyd v. Laws, 

929 F.2d 1390, 1395 (9th Cir.1991)).

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1120 Filed 05/26/16 Page 3 of 8
4

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

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

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

it returns a general verdict with interrogatories. If it returns only factual findings, leaving the court 

to determine the ultimate legal result, it returns a special verdict.”

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 49 defines special verdicts and general verdicts with answers to written 

questions. A special verdict consists of “a special written finding on each issue of fact.”

18

 A 

general verdict with answers to written questions is a general verdict with “written questions on 

one or more issues of fact that the jury must decide.”

19

 When giving a general verdict with 

answers to written questions, the court “must give the instructions and explanations necessary to 

enable the jury to render a general verdict and answer the questions in writing, and must direct the 

jury to do both.”

20

 When a jury has returned a general verdict and written answers that are 

consistent, the court must approve entry of judgment on the verdict and answers under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 58.21

III.

First, under the standards above, the jury verdict form in this case plainly was a general 

verdict with answers to written questions, also known as a general verdict with interrogatories. 

The verdict form covered GSI’s claims for trade secret misappropriation, TIPER, breach of 

contract, fraud and false promise.22 Each section contained questions for the jury to answer on 

each legal element of GSI’s claims, as well as UMI and ISSI’s affirmative defenses.23 As required 

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(b), the verdict form was accompanied by copious jury instructions 

 

17 Id.

18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(a).

19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(b)(1).

20 Id.

21 See id. at 49(b)(2).

22 See Docket No. 1055.

23 See id.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1120 Filed 05/26/16 Page 4 of 8
5

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

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

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

explaining the law for the jury to apply on each claim, affirmative defense and contention.24 It is 

true that the verdict form did not baldly ask, for example, “Is UMI liable for misappropriation of 

GSI’s trade secrets?” But the verdict form did ask the jury to answer, yes or no, if every element 

of misappropriation of trade secrets was proven, which amounts to the same thing.25 The same is 

true for the verdict form’s questions on GSI’s other claims. The verdict form also asked the jury 

to determine GSI’s damages for each claim.26 Contrary to focusing the jury exclusively on factfinding, the verdict form required the jury to announce both the ultimate legal conclusion on each 

claim and its findings on discrete factual issues. After the jury had rendered its verdict, there were 

no legal conclusions left for the court to determine on the claims submitted to the jury, and so the 

verdict form could not be a special verdict. 

UMI asserts that the jury verdict was a special verdict, but does not explain why, and does 

not respond to GSI’s argument that the verdict was a general verdict with answers to written 

questions.

27 In its opening brief, UMI mentions that jury instruction no. 62 is titled “Introduction 

to Special Verdict Form,” but does not explain why this should override the actual nature of the 

questions in the verdict form.28 The title of the jury instruction is an error, and the text of the 

instruction does not contain any language that would make the verdict form a special verdict form, 

such as statements that the jury is to make only findings of fact. The instruction simply states, 

 

24 See Docket No. 1043; Docket No. 1047 (amended jury instruction no. 33); Docket No. 1050 

(amended jury instructions nos. 26.1, 26.2).

25 See id. at 4-7 (asking if the jury found that GSI owned the information in any of the disputed 

circuit schematics; if the jury found that the information in any of the schematics was a trade 

secret at the time of the claimed misappropriation; asking whether UMI improperly used or 

disclosed the trade secrets; if UMI’s misappropriation was a substantial factor in causing GSI to 

suffer harm).

26 See id. at 13, 18, 21, 26, 30, 34.

27 See Docket No. 1072-1 at 4-5 (UMI’s opening brief, stating that the verdict is a special verdict); 

Docket No. 1090 at 1-3 (GSI’s opposing brief, arguing that the verdict is a general verdict with 

answers to written questions); Docket No. 1107 (UMI’s reply brief, not discussing this issue).

28 See Docket No. 1072-1 at 5 n.13.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1120 Filed 05/26/16 Page 5 of 8
6

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

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

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

A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you have reached unanimous 

agreement on a verdict, your presiding juror will fill in the form that has been given 

to you, sign and date it, and advise the court that you are ready to return to the 

courtroom. 

The verdict is not a special verdict, but a general verdict with answers to written questions.

Second, because UMI’s request for the court to enter an amended judgment noting the 

prevailing party on each of GSI’s claims and UMI’s counterclaims is premised on the verdict 

being a special verdict, that relief is DENIED.29 In particular, UMI requests entry of judgment on 

issues raised in its motion for JMOL under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b): that it prevailed on the 

misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract claims, and that it owes no damages on 

the contract claim.30 The court already has adjudicated the motion for JMOL separately,31 and a 

separate entry of judgment on those issues is inappropriate.32 UMI also requests entry of 

judgment on its so-called counterclaim for attorney’s fees,33 but UMI separately requested 

attorney’s fees by motion, as explicitly required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2), and the court will rule

on that motion separately.34 In any case, a separate judgment is not required for an order 

disposing of a motion for attorney’s fees.35 

Third, UMI is correct that the court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on 

 

29 See Docket No. 1072-1 at 6-17 (quoting Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04910-JD, 

2015 WL 4940798, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015) (judgment on a special verdict should 

“not[e] the prevailing party for each claim and the relief awarded, as contemplated by Rule 58”)).

30 See Docket No. 1072-1 at 11-17.

31 See Docket No. 1118.

32 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(1) (“Every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a 

separate document, but a separate document is not required for an order disposing of a motion: for 

judgment under Rule 50(b).”). 

33 See Docket No. 1072-1 at 14.

34 See Docket No. 1121.

35 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(3).

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1120 Filed 05/26/16 Page 6 of 8
7

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

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

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 Section 17200 unfair claim, because this claim was reserved for the court to resolve after the 

jury trial.

36

 Accordingly, the court rules as follows:

Findings of Fact:

1. GSI brought a claim for unfair competition in violation of Section 17200 and/or Colorado 

Revised Statute § 6-1-101 against UMI and a claim for unfair competition in violation of 

Section 17200 against ISSI.37 

2. At trial, GSI did not assert a violation of Colorado’s unfair competition law and pursued 

only its Section 17200 claims.38

3. The Section 17200 unfair claims were reserved for the court to resolve.39

4. The court instructed the jury on unfair competition and unfair business practices, because 

in addition to being the basis for the 17200 unfair claim, unfair competition also was the 

wrongful conduct element of the TIPER claim presented to the jury.40

5. Jury instruction no. 28, “Unfair Competition,” states, “GSI claims that UMI and/or ISSI 

tortiously interfered with GSI’s economic relationship with Cisco by engaging in unfair 

business practices and acts of unfair competition.”

41

6. Jury instruction no. 29, “‘Unfair’ Business Practice,” states, “A business practice can be 

‘unfair’ even if it is not illegal. To establish that UMI and/or ISSI engaged in unfair 

business practices, GSI must establish UMI and/or ISSI’s conduct significantly threatens 

or harms competition.”

42

 

36 See Docket No. 906 at 40:19-41:4.

37 See Docket No. 196 at ¶¶ 170-189.

38 See Docket No. 799-4 at 14-15; Docket No. 834-2 at 77, 79, 81, 83.

39 See id.

40 See Docket No. 1043 at 31-33.

41 Id. at 31.

42 Id. at 32.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1120 Filed 05/26/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

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

7. On November 25, 2015, the jury returned its verdict and answered, “No” to question no. 

33, “Did UMI engage in unfair competition?”

43

 The jury also answered, “No,” to question 

no. 48, “Did ISSI engage in unfair competition?”

44

8. On January 22, 2016, ISSI notified the court that GSI and ISSI had “reached a final 

settlement in this matter, among and between them.”45

Conclusions of Law:

1. “[I]n a case where legal claims are tried by a jury and equitable claims are tried by a judge, 

and the claims are based on the same facts, in deciding the equitable claims the Seventh 

Amendment requires the trial judge to follow the jury’s implicit or explicit factual 

determinations.”

46

2. Because the court is bound by the jury’s verdict that neither UMI nor ISSI engaged in 

unfair competition, GSI’s Section 17200 unfair claim against UMI does not succeed. 

3. Because GSI and ISSI settled, the court will not issue conclusions of law on GSI’s Section 

17200 unfair claim against ISSI.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

43 Docket No. 1055 at 15.

44 Id. at 19.

45 Docket No. 1098.

46 Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates, 995 F.2d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir.1993) (citation 

and quotation marks omitted).

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1120 Filed 05/26/16 Page 8 of 8