Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01267/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01267-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LILITH GAMES (SHANGHAI) CO. 

LTD., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UCOOL, INC. AND UCOOL LTD., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 15-CV-01267-SC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Now before the Court is Defendants uCool, Inc. and uCool LTD's 

("uCool") motion to compel particularized trade secret disclosure 

by Plaintiff Lilith Games Co. ("Lilith"). ECF No. 45 ("MTC"). The 

motion is fully briefed1

 and appropriate for resolution without 

oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The hearing scheduled 

for August 14, 2015 is VACATED. 

In its motion and supporting papers, uCool asks the court to 

compel Lilith to "to disclose its trade secrets with adequate 

particularity" and to bar "Lilith from taking discovery until such 

 

1

 ECF Nos. 55 ("Opp'n"); 60 ("Reply"). 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 12
2 

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 

productions are made" pursuant to section 2019.210 of the 

California Code of Civil Procedure. MTC at 15. Because Lilith has 

already disclosed its trade secrets with adequate particularity, 

uCool's motion is DENIED. Further, Lilith is not barred from 

taking discovery. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Lilith is a video game developer that released the 

game Dao Ta Chuan Qi (translated as "Sword and Tower")2 in China in 

February 2014. Lilith claims to own the copyrights in Sword and 

Tower's source code and to possess Chinese copyright registrations. 

In March 2015, Lilith decided to release Sword and Tower in other 

countries including the United States, Japan, and certain European 

countries. 

Defendant uCool is an American video game marketer who 

allegedly used the copyrighted software code for Sword and Tower to 

create its own game, Heroes Charge, which it published in the 

United States in August 2014. According to Lilith's complaint, 

Sword and Tower and Heroes Charge both involve the same ideas, and 

their expression of those ideas is virtually identical. In 

addition, Heroes Charge allegedly includes a portion of Lilith's 

code that triggers Lilith's copyright notice to appear at a certain 

point while playing Heroes Charge. 

In its first claim for relief for copyright infringement, 

Lilith alleges that uCool unlawfully gained access to Lilith's 

copyrighted computer software code embodied in Sword and Tower and 

 

2

 The game has also been referred to as "Dota Legends". See, e.g., 

ECF No. 43-01 ¶ 2. 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 12
3 

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 

copied it into the source code embodied in Heroes Charge. Because 

Sword and Tower is not a United States work as defined in 17 U.S.C. 

§ 101, Lilith brings its copyright infringement claim under the 

Berne Convention, an international agreement governing copyright, 

to which both the United States and China are signatories. 

In its second claim for relief, Lilith alleges that 240,000 

lines of software code embodied in Sword and Tower are a trade 

secret and that uCool knowingly misappropriated that trade secret 

in violation of California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Cal. Civ. 

Code § 3426, et seq.) when it allegedly used Lilith's code to 

create Heroes Charge. Lilith claims to maintain the Sword and 

Tower source code confidentially, limiting access only to those 

employees who need access to perform their duties.3 

Lilith's third, fourth, and fifth claims for relief allege 

violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.). Specifically, Lilith claims that by 

misappropriating Lilith's trade secrets, uCool engaged in unlawful, 

unfair, and fraudulent business practices. 

III. LITIGATION HISTORY 

Lilith filed its first amended complaint on April 8, 2015. 

ECF No. 20 ("FAC"). On April 22, 2015, Lilith filed a motion for 

preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin uCool from reproducing, 

copying, preparing any derivative works, or distributing any of 

Lilith's trade secrets or copyrights allegedly contained in uCool's 

 

3

 Further, Lilith claims that those who are granted access are 

required to agree that the code is owned by Lilith, will not be 

disclosed to any third party, and is to be confidentially 

maintained. 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 12
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

video game, Heroes Charge. ECF No. 30 ("Prel. Inj. Mot."). 

On June 4, 2015 and again on June 18, 2015, the Court 

continued the hearing on Lilith's motion for preliminary injunction 

until August 15, 2015 in order to allow the parties to take limited 

discovery in preparation for the preliminary injunction hearing. 

ECF Nos. 48, 58. 

The parties held a Rule 26(f) conference on May 26, 2015, and 

discovery commenced immediately thereafter. uCool, however, has 

not responded to Lilith's discovery requests because it claims that 

Lilith is barred from taking discovery until Lilith provides a more 

particularized description of its trade secrets. As explained 

below, Lilith is not barred from taking discovery, and uCool may no 

longer refuse to provide discovery responses on that basis. 

IV. DISCUSSION 

uCool's motion presents two related issues: (1) Whether section 

2019.210 of the California Code of Civil Procedure applies to cases 

brought in federal court; and (2) if section 2019.210 does apply, 

whether Lilith satisfied its requirement to identify trade secrets 

with "reasonable particularity." For the reasons set forth below, 

the Court finds that section 2019.210 applies to this case and that 

Lilith identified its trade secrets with "reasonable 

particularity." 

A. Applicability of Section 2019.210 in Federal Court 

The Court must first decide whether the California statutory 

requirement in section 2019.210 for a plaintiff to identify his 

trade secrets with "reasonable particularity" should apply in a 

federal court sitting in California. The Ninth Circuit has not 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 12
5 

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 

decided this issue, and federal district courts are split. Compare 

Gabriel Technologies Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 08CV1992, 2012 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33417, at *11 (S.D. Cal. March 13, 2012) and Soc. 

Apps, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., 2012 WL 2203063, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 

14, 2012) (holding that section 2019.210 did apply), with Funcat 

Leisure Craft, Inc. v. Johnson Outdoors, Inc., No. S-06-0533, 2007 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8870, at *7-9 (E.D. Cal. Jan 29, 2007) and 

Hilderman v. Enea Teksci, Inc., No. 05CV0149-BTM, 2010 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 1527, at *6-10 (S.D. Cal. Jan 8, 2010) (holding that section 

2019.210 did not apply). For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court follows the cases applying section 2019.210 in federal cases. 

When questions of state law are raised in federal court, the 

federal court generally applies the state's substantive law but 

federal procedural law. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 

(1938). The determination of whether a rule is "substantive" 

depends on the legal context and requires the court to consider 

whether the state rule conflicts with any applicable federal rule. 

Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 471 (1965). If there is a conflict, 

the federal rule prevails. If there is no conflict, the court then 

looks to whether the failure to apply the state rule would 

significantly affect the outcome of the litigation or create 

incentives for forum-shopping. Id. at 468. 

Section 2019.210 of the California Code of Civil Procedure 

states: 

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 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 5 of 12
6 

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 

particularity subject to any orders that may be 

appropriate under Section 3426.5 of the Civil Code.4 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210. 

Courts declining to apply section 2019.210 in federal cases 

have held that section 2019.210 conflicts with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26. See, e.g., Hilderman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

1527, at *6-10. Specifically, those courts have reasoned that, by 

allowing the defendant to refuse discovery until the plaintiff has 

satisfied the "reasonable particularity" requirement, section 

2019.210 erects a bar to commencing discovery that would not 

otherwise exist in federal court. See id. at *7. 

Courts in the Northern District of California, however, have 

generally found that section 2019.210 is applicable in federal 

cases. See Zynga, 2012 WL 2203063, at *2; Jobscience, Inc. v. 

CVPartners, Inc., No. C 13-04519 WHA, 2014 WL 852477, at *4 (N.D. 

Cal. Feb. 28, 2014). These courts have held that section 2019.210 

assists the court in defining the appropriate scope of discovery in 

a trade secrets case and does not conflict with any Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure. See id. 

The Court finds the reasoning of the cases applying section 

2019.210 in federal cases more persuasive. Section 2019.210 is 

generally consistent with Rule 26's requirements of early 

disclosure of evidence and the Court's authority to control the 

timing and sequence of discovery in the interests of justice. It 

 

4

 A trade secret is "information, including a formula, pattern, 

compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: 

(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from 

not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can 

obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the 

subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to 

maintain its secrecy." Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d); see IMAX Corp. 

v. Cinema Technologies, Inc. 152 F.3d 1161, 1165 (1998). 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 6 of 12
7 

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 

is also consistent with the court's authority to issue a protective 

order regarding discovery of trade secrets and confidential 

information as set forth in Rule 26(c)(1)(G). What is more, by 

applying section 2019.210 to trade secret claims filed in federal 

court, courts avoid creating improper incentives for forum 

shopping. Refusal to apply section 2019.210 in federal cases could 

allow plaintiffs to change their trade secret claims in light of 

information revealed in discovery, which would attract plaintiffs 

to the federal forum. See id. (citing Computer Economics, 50 F. 

Supp. 2d at 992; Gabriel Technologies, 2012 WL 849167 at *4). 

For these reasons, the Court finds that section 2019.210 is 

properly applied in this case. 

B. Section 2019.210 Analysis 

Section 2019.210 requires the plaintiff to identify the trade 

secret "with reasonable particularity," but it is not entirely 

clear from the statute what "reasonable particularity" means in a 

given case. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210. In general, a 

plaintiff's identification of trade secrets are "to be liberally 

construed . . . and doubts about the permissible scope of discovery 

are to be resolved in favor of disclosure." Advanced Modular 

Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 132 Cal. App. 4th 826, 835 (2005). 

Thus, "reasonable particularity" does not mean that the plaintiff 

"has to define every minute detail of its claimed trade secret at 

the outset of the litigation." Id. Instead, a plaintiff must make 

a showing that is "fair, proper, just and rational . . . in a 

manner that will allow the trial court to control the scope of 

subsequent discovery, protect all parties' proprietary information, 

and allow them a fair opportunity to prepare and present their best 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 7 of 12
8 

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 

case or defense at a trial on the merits." Id. at 836. 

"Reasonable particularity" should also be understood in light 

of the purpose of section 2019.210: 

First, [section 2019.210] promotes well-investigated 

claims and dissuades the filing of meritless trade secret 

complaints. Second, it prevents plaintiffs from using the 

discovery process as a means to obtain the defendant's 

trade secrets. Third, the rule assists the court in 

framing the appropriate scope of discovery and in 

determining whether plaintiff's discovery requests fall 

within that scope. Fourth, it enables defendants to 

form complete and well-reasoned defenses, ensuring that 

they need not wait until the eve of trial to effectively 

defend against charges of trade secret misappropriation. 

Id. at 833-34 (quoting Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group 

Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 985 (l999)). Accordingly, courts have 

required plaintiffs "to identify or designate the trade secrets at 

issue with 'sufficient particularity' to limit the permissible 

scope of discovery by distinguishing the trade secrets 'from 

matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge 

of those persons . . . skilled in the trade.'" Id. at 835 (quoting 

IMAX Corp. v. Cinema Technologies, Inc., 152 F.3d 1161, 1164–1165 

(1998). 

 Finally, the degree of "particularity" that is "reasonable" 

will differ depending on the trade secrets at issue. For example, 

in Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court, the alleged 

trade secrets consisted of "incremental variations on, or advances 

in the state of the art in [the] highly specialized technical 

field" of "sputtering equipment" -- equipment used "to deposit a 

thin and even film of material onto a silicon wafer." Id. at 836. 

The court required "a more exacting level of particularity" in that 

case because additional information was necessary "to distinguish 

the alleged trade secrets from matters already known to persons 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 8 of 12
9 

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 

skilled in that field."5 Id. 

In its complaint, Lilith claims its trade secret consists of 

the 240,000 lines of Lua code authored by Lilith to create Sword 

and Tower. FAC ¶ 21. Those specific lines of code were allegedly 

authored to express Lilith's original and uniquely developed game. 

Lilith claims to have taken reasonable steps to maintain that code 

as a secret, including through password protected servers and 

confidentiality agreements. Id. ¶ 22. 

In addition to its complaint, Lilith has provided additional 

information showing how its trade secret differs from other source 

code embodied in Sword and Tower. For example, in its declaration 

supporting its motion for preliminary injunction, Lilith explained 

that its employees exclusively authored 240,000 lines of software 

code in a language called Lua. ECF No. 30-14 ("Zhang Decl.") ¶ 4. 

The declaration also described the game development process whereby 

Lilith's employees first designed the game and set the rules that 

would govern its play. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. Lilith's programmers then had 

the task of writing source code in the Lua coding language to 

implement and bring those development efforts to light. Id. ¶¶ 4-

5. Lilith further explained that while many people may know the 

Lua language, "there are numerous ways in which the code can be 

authored and structured to achieve a desired result." Id. ¶ 5. 

The specific way that Lilith authored and structured the Lua Code 

in Sword and Tower is what Lilith is claiming as its "confidential, 

 

5

 The court also noted, however, that "the proponent of the alleged 

trade secret is not required . . . to describe it with the greatest 

degree of particularity possible, or to reach such an exacting 

level of specificity that even its opponents are forced to agree 

the designation is adequate." Id. 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 9 of 12
10 

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 

proprietary, and trade-secret information." Opp'n at 2. 

 In addition to those filings, Lilith provided uCool with a 

Trade Secret Disclosure Statement. ECF No. 55-2 ("TS Discl. 

Stmt."). The disclosure presented facts, supported by Mr. Zhang's 

declaration, describing Lilith's alleged trade secret in the Sword 

and Tower code. The disclosure included information regarding the 

steps taken by Lilith to develop Sword and Tower, how Lilith's 

employees authored approximately 240,000 lines of Lua code to 

implement Lilith's development efforts, how the particular code 

embodied in Sword and Tower is unique to Lilith and not generally 

known, and a description of Lilith's efforts to keep its Lua code 

confidential. TS Discl. Stmt. at 2-4. 

Lilith has provided more than enough information to determine 

with sufficient particularity the trade secrets at issue in this 

case. Moreover, it has provided sufficient information to 

differentiate its trade secret from other code contained in Sword 

and Tower. Specifically, when Sword and Tower is downloaded from 

the App Store, the download package contains three parts: (1) the 

game written by Lilith in Lua, comprised of 240,000 unique lines of 

code; (2) the open-source engine Cocos2d-x, of which there is 

approximately 1,737,487 lines of source code; and (3) the SDK 

provided by Apple. Opp'n at 2. Lilith is claiming only the first 

as a trade secret. 

 In technical cases such as this, a plaintiff must describe the 

trade secret, not merely the technology. See IDX Sys. v. Epic Sys. 

Corp., 285 F.3d 581, 583-84 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, Lilith's 

description would have been inadequate if it had simply declared 

that Sword and Tower contained valuable trade secrets and then 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 10 of 12
11 

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 

pointed to uCool's use of Sword and Tower as misappropriation. See 

Mai Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 522-23 (9th 

Cir. 1993). Instead, Lilith specifically identified the trade 

secret contained in the software and differentiated the trade 

secret from other components. In doing so, Lilith has set the 

boundaries for its trade secret.6

 uCool is therefore in a position 

to understand Lilith's trade secret claim and formulate its 

defenses accordingly. 

Citing Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc., uCool argues that "a 

more exacting level of particularity" is necessary in order to 

determine Lilith's trade secrets. Mot. at 12. Unlike the alleged 

trade secrets in Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc., however, the 

trade secrets in this case are not hard to identify, nor do they 

represent "incremental variations on or advances . . . in a highly 

specialized technical field." Id. The code at issue in this case 

is a unique combination of code in a well-known programming 

language, not an "incremental variation on or advance" in the 

fields of software or video game development. Nor does this case 

involve a highly specialized field. Although software programming 

is technical, authoring programming for a video game is not nearly 

as specialized or technical as the trade secrets at issue in 

Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc., which required additional 

disclosure in order to differentiate the trade secrets from other 

aspects of the equipment. 

 

6

 uCool's citation to Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 178 

Cal. App. 4th 1333 (2009) is unavailing. Unlike the plaintiff in 

Perlan, Lilith has segregated its alleged trade secrets and 

explained how its secrets differ from publicly available knowledge. 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 11 of 12
12 

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 

V. CONCLUSION 

As set forth above, uCool's motion to compel is DENIED. Lilith 

is not barred from taking discovery. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: July 9, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 66 Filed 07/09/15 Page 12 of 12