Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALTA DEVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-00404-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE DISPUTE RE PROPOSED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 32, 35

The parties have submitted for the Court’s consideration a proposed protective order that is

based on the Court’s model Protective Order for Litigation Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive 

Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets. The parties agree that a patent prosecution bar is 

necessary, but they disagree on the appropriate scope of the prosecution bar in section 8 of the 

model protective order. They also disagree on the meaning of the term “source code” as used in 

section 9 of the model protective order. The Court heard oral argument on both issues on July 31, 

2018.

Having considered the parties’ respective positions, as well as plaintiff Alta Devices, Inc.’s 

trade secret disclosures, the Court finds that the appropriate scope of the prosecution bar is: 

“prosecution of patents or patent applications relating to the manufacture of gallium arsenide thinfilm solar cells.” As the Court explained at the hearing, if either party finds that the scope of the 

prosecution bar adversely impacts the retention of a particular expert whose actual or anticipated 

prosecution activities fall outside the scope of the alleged trade secrets but fall within the scope of 

the patent prosecution bar, the parties may bring that issue to the Court’s attention on a case-bycase basis. The parties may otherwise bring disputes over expert disclosure or discovery before 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 38 Filed 07/31/18 Page 1 of 2
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

Northern District of California

this Court pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases.

With respect to the meaning of the term “source code” as used in section 9 of the model 

protective order, the Court finds that “source code” has its ordinary meaning: computer code 

written in human-readable programming language. Section 9 specifies the requirements for the 

production of source code. The term “source code” as used in that section is not coextensive with 

the material that falls under the defined category of “Highly Confidential – Source Code 

Information and Items” in section 2.9 of the model protective order, which specifies the 

confidential treatment of source code and related material during discovery. The parties are free to 

stipulate to enhanced requirements for the production of sensitive information in addition to 

source code, or if they cannot agree, the party desiring enhanced protection for the production of

some category of sensitive information may use the discovery dispute procedures outlined in the 

Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases to obtain a ruling from the Court on that issue.

The parties shall submit a revised proposed protective order, consistent with this order, for 

the Court’s review and approval.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 38 Filed 07/31/18 Page 2 of 2