Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03586/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03586-15/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

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

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (A 

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

OF ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

(Re: Docket No. 148)

Just under two months ago, the court granted-in-part a motion by Plaintiffs VIA 

Technologies, Inc. and VIA Labs, Inc. to compel Defendants ASUS Computer International, 

ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASMedia Technology, Inc. to respond to a number of discovery 

requests related to VIA’s trade secret claims.1 In doing so, the court assessed the scope of VIA’s 

trade secret disclosure2and found that it provided “practically no guidance on precisely what VIA 

claims as its trade secrets.”3 As a result, the court granted discovery only as to the twelve analog 

schematics that VIA had identified.4

 

1

See Docket No. 148. VIA alleges that Defendants hired away some former VIA employees and 

that they took with them VIA’s proprietary designs for USB controllers. See Docket No. 70 at 

¶¶ 7-13, 36-53.

2

See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210 (“In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade 

secret . . . , before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the 

misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity . . . .”).

3 Docket No. 148 at 6.

4

See id. at 7.

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 157 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

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

VIA now asks the court to revisit that decision.5 It does so on three grounds: (1) 

Defendants waived the requirement that claimed trade secrets be “identif[ied] with reasonable 

particularity”6by raising no objections to VIA’s disclosure and proceeding with discovery; (2) the 

trade secret disclosure was adequate and (3) the court should have granted VIA leave to amend its 

trade secret disclosure to correct any deficiencies.

On the first two issues, VIA has not met the requirements of the Civil Local Rules. The 

moving party on a motion for reconsideration must show “a material difference in fact or law . . . 

from that which was presented to the [c]ourt,” “[t]he emergence of new material facts or a change 

of law” or “[a] manifest failure by the [c]ourt to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments which were presented to the [c]ourt before [the relevant] interlocutory order.”7 VIA 

argues that “Defendants never disputed the sufficiency of VIA’s Disclosure, but the Court 

nevertheless sua sponte considered the issue.”8

But the court did not find the disclosure wholly inadequate; it only found that it did not 

disclose all of the purported trade secrets on which VIA sought discovery. Put another way, the 

question before the court was not whether VIA’s disclosure was sufficient in some abstract sense, 

but “what . . . VIA’s trade secret disclosure actually disclose[d].”9 Defendants certainly did 

dispute what VIA’s disclosure covered,

10 and VIA contended that Defendants had waived this

argument.

11

 The court agreed with Defendants that the only trade secrets VIA had disclosed were 

 

5

See Docket No. 148.

6 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210.

7 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

8 Docket No. 148 at 4.

9 Docket No. 132 at 5.

10 See Docket No. 120-4 at 6-10.

11 See Docket No. 122-4 at 7-8.

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 157 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

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 twelve schematics it specifically identified in its disclosure.12 It also held that the court could 

consider the scope of the disclosure even if Defendants no longer objected to its adequacy.13 

These issues are not new, and the “extraordinary remedy” of reconsideration14 is not warranted.

On the issue of amendment, however, VIA’s argument is more persuasive. VIA notes that 

the court’s order on the motion to compel was the first time the court had weighed in on any 

deficiencies in VIA’s disclosure and that VIA has had no opportunity to correct those deficiencies. 

Furthermore, courts have often allowed parties to amend their trade secret disclosures to overcome 

their insufficiencies.15 VIA deserves that chance too.

16

Of course, VIA has not yet clarified how it intends to solve its problem. A trade secret 

disclosure must “identify or designate the trade secrets at issue with ‘sufficient particularity’ to 

limit the permissible scope of discovery.”

17 The list of 12 schematics offers that particularity; the 

remainder of the disclosure does not. VIA does not offer to eliminate the vague and unhelpful 

language that the court highlighted in its order.18

 

12 See Docket No. 132 at 5, 7.

13 See id. at 5.

14 De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1105, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Carroll v. 

Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)).

15 See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal. App. 4th 826, 831-32

(2005); Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti, Case No. 15-cv-00798, 2015 WL 9269758, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 

Dec. 21, 2015); Sys. Am., Inc. v. Softline, Inc., Case No. 96-cv-20730, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

22415, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 1996).

16 Defendants contend that VIA should file a separate motion to request leave to amend its trade 

secret disclosure. See Docket No. 152 at 14-15. The cases they cite, however, say only that the 

party must demonstrate good cause for any such amendment. See, e.g., Loop AI Labs, 2015 WL 

9269758, at *4; Neothermia Corp. v. Rubicor Med., Inc., 345 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1045 (N.D. Cal. 

2004). Even assuming that VIA should have filed a separate motion, with the deadline for fact 

discovery fast approaching, the court sees no reason to stand on ceremony.

17 AMS, 132 Cal. App. 4th at 835 (quoting Imax Corp. v. Cinema Techs., Inc., 152 F.3d 1161, 

1164 (9th Cir. 1998)).

18 See Docket No. 132 at 6.

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 157 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

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

VIA’s only proposed change is an incomplete solution. In its operative trade secret 

disclosure, VIA says that its “trade secret analog designs . . . include, but are not limited to, the 

documents produced” within a Bates range.19 VIA suggests adding an index listing the schematic 

and project names corresponding to each Bates-numbered document.20 To the extent the index 

contains titles of additional schematics that VIA claims as trade secrets, including those titles in 

the disclosure itself would identify those schematics as claimed trade secrets with reasonable 

particularity.21 That in turn would require Defendants to produce their own schematics 

corresponding to those titles. But it would not open the door to discovery of all of the schematics 

for all of Defendants’ USB products, or even to all of the schematics for the functional areas that 

VIA alleges that Defendants copied. And if VIA intends to claim that any combination of features 

in its products forms a trade secret, its disclosure must “describe how it believes the combination 

of these features distinguish[es] the alleged trade secrets from the prior art, or matters within the 

general knowledge of people in [its] industry.”22

VIA may file an amended trade secret disclosure within 14 days. Defendants will then 

have 21 more days to produce any new documents that the amended disclosure renders responsive 

to VIA’s requests for production.

 

19 Docket No. 120-5 at 1.

20 See Docket No. 148-2.

21 Whether those schematics actually constitute trade secrets, of course, is a separate question. See 

Brescia v. Angelin, 172 Cal. App. 4th 133, 149 (2009).

22 AMS, 132 Cal. App. 4th at 836. VIA has identified that certain features of its chip designs “are 

responsible for the power efficiency of its chipsets,” and it has indicated that components with 

those features fit together into a single functional chip. See Docket No. 120-5 at 3. It has not 

explained, however, how “the combination of these features [is] itself unique and secret.” AMS, 

132 Cal. App. 4th at 832.

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 157 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

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

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 157 Filed 05/13/16 Page 5 of 5