Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081-47/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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., 

 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 1 of 66
2

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

Table of Contents

1. Burden of Proof – Preponderance of the Evidence.................................................................. 4

2. Burden of Proof – Clear and Convincing Evidence................................................................. 5

3. Expert Opinion......................................................................................................................... 6

4. Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony..................................................................................... 7

5. Impeachment Evidence – Witness........................................................................................... 8

6. Demonstrative Evidence .......................................................................................................... 9

7. Corporate Liability................................................................................................................. 10

8. Multiple Parties...................................................................................................................... 11

9. Party Having Power to Produce Better Evidence .................................................................. 12

10. Failure to Explain or Deny Evidence..................................................................................... 13

11. GSI’s Claims as to UMI......................................................................................................... 14

12. GSI’s Claims as to ISSI ......................................................................................................... 15

13. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets – Essential Factual Elements.......................................... 16

14. “Trade Secret” Defined.......................................................................................................... 17

15. Secrecy Requirement ............................................................................................................. 18

16. Reasonable Efforts to Protect Secrecy................................................................................... 19

17. “Independent Economic Value” Explained ........................................................................... 20

18. Mere Possession of Another’s Trade Secret .......................................................................... 21

19. Certain Knowledge of Employee Not Imputed to Employer................................................. 22

20. Improper Means of Acquiring Trade Secret .......................................................................... 23

21. Misappropriation by Use........................................................................................................ 24

22. Misappropriation by Disclosure............................................................................................. 25

23. General Skills, Knowledge and Experience........................................................................... 26

24. Remedies for Misappropriation of Trade Secret.................................................................... 27

25. Causation: Substantial Factor................................................................................................. 28

26. Misappropriation – Actual Loss – Lost Profits...................................................................... 29

27. Misappropriation – Unjust Enrichment.................................................................................. 30

28. Unfair Competition ................................................................................................................ 31

29. “Unfair” Business Practice .................................................................................................... 32

30. Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Relations –

Essential Factual Elements .................................................................................................... 33

31. Causation: Substantial Factor................................................................................................. 34

32. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations – Actual Loss –

Lost Profits............................................................................................................................. 35

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 2 of 66
3

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

33. Contract Performance – Breach of Contract – Elements of Liability.................................... 36

34. Contract Performance – Breach of Contract Defined ............................................................ 37

35. Contract Interpretation – Disputed Term – LLDRAM.......................................................... 38

36. Contract Interpretation – Parties’ Intent ................................................................................ 39

37. Contract Interpretation – Contract as a Whole ...................................................................... 40

38. Contract Interpretation – Ordinary Meaning ......................................................................... 41

39. Contract Interpretation – Use of Technical Words in a Contract .......................................... 42

40. Contract Interpretation – Specific and General Clauses........................................................ 43

41. Contract Damages – Special Damages .................................................................................. 44

42. Lost Profits............................................................................................................................. 45

43. Nominal Damages.................................................................................................................. 46

44. Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation ................................................................................... 47

45. False Promise ......................................................................................................................... 48

46. Reliance.................................................................................................................................. 49

47. Reasonable Reliance .............................................................................................................. 50

48. Measures of Types of Damages............................................................................................. 51

49. Damages Arising in the Future – Discount to Present Cash Value ....................................... 52

50. Punitive Damages .................................................................................................................. 53

51. Affirmative Defense – Unclean Hands.................................................................................. 54

52. Affirmative Defense – Trade Secret Misappropriation – Information Was Readily 

Ascertainable by Proper Means ............................................................................................. 55

53. Affirmative Defense – Trade Secret Misappropriation – Statute of Limitations................... 56

54. Affirmative Defense – Breach of Contract – Waiver ............................................................ 57

55. Affirmative Defense – Breach of Contract – Non-compete – Statute of Limitations............ 58

56. Affirmative Defense – Fraud – Waiver ................................................................................. 59

57. Affirmative Defense – Fraud – Statute of Limitations .......................................................... 60

58. Affirmative Defense – Estoppel............................................................................................. 61

59. Affirmative Defense – Mitigation of Damages ..................................................................... 62

60. Schematics Beyond GSI’s 25 Trade Secret Claims............................................................... 63

61. Contention of Misappropriation Claimed in Bad Faith ......................................................... 64

62. Introduction to Special Verdict Form .................................................................................... 65

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 3 of 66
4

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

1. BURDEN OF PROOF – PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim or affirmative defense by a preponderance of 

the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or affirmative defense 

is more probably true than not true.

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 4 of 66
5

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

2. BURDEN OF PROOF – CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it 

means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or defense is highly probable. This is 

a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 5 of 66
6

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

3. EXPERT OPINION

Some witnesses, because of education or experience, were permitted to state opinions and the

reasons for those opinions.

Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony. You may accept it or reject it,

and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s education and

experience, the reason given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 6 of 66
7

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

4. DEPOSITION IN LIEU OF LIVE TESTIMONY

As I have previously explained, a deposition is the sworn testimony of a witness taken before trial.

The witness is placed under oath to tell the truth and lawyers for each party may ask questions. The

questions and answers are recorded. When a person is unavailable to testify at trial, or because the

parties have agreed not to call an individual live, the deposition of that person may be used at the

trial.

You should consider deposition testimony, presented to you in court by videotape or read to you

from a deposition transcript in lieu of live testimony, insofar as possible, in the same way as if the

witness had been present to testify.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 7 of 66
8

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

5. IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE – WITNESS

The evidence that a witness testified differently on a prior occasion may be considered, along with

all other evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how much weight to give

to the testimony of the witness and for no other purpose. 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 8 of 66
9

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

6. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE

During the trial, materials have been shown to you to help explain testimony or other evidence in

the case. Other materials have also been shown to you during the trial, but they have not been

admitted into evidence. You will not be able to review them during your deliberations because they

are not themselves evidence or proof of any facts. You may, however, consider the testimony given

in connection with those materials.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 9 of 66
10

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

7. CORPORATE LIABILITY

Under the law, a corporation is considered to be a person. It can only act through its employees, 

directors, or officers. Therefore, a corporation is responsible for the acts of its employees, 

directors, and officers performed within the scope of authority.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 10 of 66
11

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

8. MULTIPLE PARTIES

There are two defendants in this trial, United Memories, Inc. and Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. 

You should decide the case against each defendant separately as if it were a separate lawsuit. Just 

as Plaintiff GSI Technology, Inc. deserves individual attention as to each claim it brings, each 

defendant is entitled to a fair and separate consideration of its defense. 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 11 of 66
12

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

9. PARTY HAVING POWER TO PRODUCE BETTER EVIDENCE

You may consider the ability of each party to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker 

evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 12 of 66
13

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

10. FAILURE TO EXPLAIN OR DENY EVIDENCE

If a party failed to explain or deny evidence against it when it could reasonably be expected to have 

done so based on what it knew, you may consider its failure to explain or deny in evaluating that 

evidence.

It is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of the failure to explain or deny evidence 

against the party.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 13 of 66
14

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

11. GSI’S CLAIMS AS TO UMI

You are to decide whether GSI has met its burden of proving the following claims alleged in GSI’s 

complaint as to UMI:

1. Misappropriation of trade secrets;

2. Unfair competition; 

3. Intentional interference with prospective economic relations;

4. Breach of contract; 

5. Fraud; and

6. False promise.

The elements that GSI must prove in order to succeed on these claims are described elsewhere in 

the instructions. 

UMI denies those claims and also contends that:

1. GSI’s breach of contract claim is barred by the doctrine of fraud in the inducement;

2. GSI’s breach of contract and fraud claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver;

3. GSI’s misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and fraud claims are barred by 

the statute of limitations;

4. GSI’s breach of contract claim is barred due to GSI’s failure to mitigate damages; 

5. GSI’s unfair competition, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, 

misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, fraud, and false promise claims are barred by 

the doctrine of unclean hands; and

6. GSI’s unfair competition, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, 

misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, fraud, and false promise claims are barred by 

the doctrine of estoppel.

7. Each of GSI’s alleged trade secrets is readily ascertainable;

The elements that UMI must prove in order to succeed on these affirmative defenses are described

elsewhere in the instructions.

GSI denies UMI’s affirmative defenses.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 14 of 66
15

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

12. GSI’S CLAIMS AS TO ISSI

You are to decide whether GSI has met its burden of proving the following claims alleged in GSI’s 

complaint as to ISSI:

1. Misappropriation of trade secrets;

2. Unfair competition; and

3. Intentional interference with prospective economic relations.

The elements that GSI must prove in order to succeed on these claims are described elsewhere in 

the instructions. 

ISSI denies those claims and also contends that:

1. GSI’s unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective economic relations, and 

misappropriation of trade secrets claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel;

2. GSI’s unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective economic relations, and 

misappropriation of trade secrets claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands;

3. GSI’s unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective economic relations, and 

misappropriation of trade secrets claims are barred due to GSI’s failure to mitigate damages; and 

4. Each of GSI’s alleged trade secrets is readily ascertainable.

ISSI further contends that:

1. GSI brought and maintained its trade secret misappropriation claims in bad faith.

The elements that ISSI must prove in order to succeed on these affirmative defenses and this bad 

faith claim are described elsewhere in the instructions.

GSI denies ISSI’s affirmative defenses and bad faith contention.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 15 of 66
16

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

13. MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS – ESSENTIAL FACTUAL 

ELEMENTS

The court has ruled that GSI owns each of 25 schematics based on a product design contract 

between GSI and UMI, named as follows:

1. chcon

2. rclk

3. rclk_match

4. dmmatch

5. wclk

6. rcbufwrc

7. wbkcom

8. qcalblk

9. qcal

10. qcaladj

11. qcals

12. pcalreg

13. ncalreg

14. fidec

15. gclk

16. yclkmix

17. r13buf

18. rbuf

19. bnkcon

20. yclkclk

21. lwrite

22. pretimer

23. bab_s80

24. lread

25. rcbuf.

GSI claims that UMI and/or ISSI has misappropriated trade secret information in these schematics, 

which is distinct from the schematics themselves. To succeed on these claims, GSI must prove all 

of the following for one or more of the 25 schematics.

1. That GSI owned the information in the schematic, and not just the schematic itself;

2. That the information was a trade secret at the time of the claimed misappropriation; 

3. That UMI and/or ISSI improperly acquired, used, or disclosed the trade secret;

4. That GSI was harmed in connection with the trade secret; and

5. That UMI and/or ISSI’s improper acquisition, use, or disclosure of the trade secret was a 

substantial factor in causing GSI’s harm.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 16 of 66
17

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

14. “TRADE SECRET” DEFINED

To prove a trade secret in the information in any of the 25 schematics, GSI must prove all of the 

following:

1. That the information was secret;

2. That the information had actual or potential independent economic value because it was 

secret; and

3. That GSI made reasonable efforts to keep the information secret.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 17 of 66
18

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

15. SECRECY REQUIREMENT

The secrecy required to prove that the information in any of the 25 schematics is a trade secret does 

not have to be absolute in the sense that no one else in the world possesses the information. It may 

be disclosed to employees involved in GSI’s use of the trade secret as long as they are instructed to 

keep the information secret. It may also be disclosed to nonemployees if they are obligated to keep 

the information secret. However, it must not have been generally known to the public or to people 

who could obtain value from knowing it.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 18 of 66
19

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

16. REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PROTECT SECRECY 

To establish that the information in any of the 25 schematics is a trade secret, GSI must prove that 

it made reasonable efforts under the circumstances to keep the information secret. “Reasonable 

efforts” are the efforts that would be made by a reasonable business in the same situation and 

having the same knowledge and resources as GSI, exercising due care to protect important 

information of the same kind. 

In determining whether or not GSI made reasonable efforts to keep the information secret, you 

should consider all the facts and circumstances. Among the factors you may consider are the 

following:

1. Whether documents or computer files containing the information were marked with 

confidentiality warnings;

2. Whether GSI instructed its employees to treat the information as confidential;

3. Whether GSI restricted access to the information to persons who had a business reason 

to know the information;

4. Whether GSI kept the information in a restricted or secure area;

5. Whether GSI required employees or others with access to the information to sign 

confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements;

6. Whether GSI took any action to protect the specific information, or whether it relied on 

general measures taken to protect its business information or assets;

7. The extent to which any general measures taken by GSI would prevent the unauthorized 

disclosure of the information; and

8. Whether there were other reasonable measures available to GSI that it did not take.

The presence or absence of any one or more of these factors is not necessarily determinative.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 19 of 66
20

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

17. “INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC VALUE” EXPLAINED

The information in any of the 25 schematics has independent economic value if it gives the owner 

an actual or potential business advantage over others who do not know the information and who 

could obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.

In determining whether the information had actual or potential independent economic value 

because it was secret, you may consider the following:

1. The extent to which GSI obtained or could obtain economic value from the information

in keeping it secret;

2. The extent to which others could obtain economic value from the information if it were 

not secret;

3. The amount of time, money, or labor that GSI expended in developing the information; 

and

4. The amount of time, money, or labor that would be saved by a competitor who used the 

information.

The presence or absence of any one or more of these factors is not necessarily determinative.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 20 of 66
21

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

18. MERE POSSESSION OF ANOTHER’S TRADE SECRET

Possession of another’s trade secret is not by itself a basis for liability.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 21 of 66
22

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

19. CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF EMPLOYEE NOT IMPUTED TO EMPLOYER

A company is deemed to have notice and knowledge of any facts any of its employees ought, in 

good faith and in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, to communicate to the company.

GSI contends that ISSI engaged in acts that constitute misappropriation of trade secrets based on 

knowledge attributable to them through certain employees. The law distinguishes between 

knowledge of an employee that is attributable to an employer and knowledge that is not.

One example of information that is not attributable to an employer through an employee is where 

an employee is acting adversely to the company in a transaction or matter, for the employee’s own 

purposes, or acting for the interests of another person or company.

A second example of information that is not attributable to an employer through an employee is 

where an employee’s knowledge is gained before or outside the scope of the employee’s particular 

job duties and responsibilities.

A third example of information that is not attributable to an employer through an employee is 

where an employee lacks authority to bind the company, such as where an employee is not a 

company executive or officer, and whose job duties and responsibilities do not include entering 

into a transaction on behalf of the company.

A fourth example of information that is not attributable to an employer through an employee is 

when the employee has learned information subject to confidentiality protections, such as a nondisclosure agreement, that does not permit further disclosure to the employer.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 22 of 66
23

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

20. IMPROPER MEANS OF ACQUIRING TRADE SECRET

Improper means of acquiring a trade secret or knowledge of a trade secret include, but are not 

limited to, theft, misrepresentation, breach or inducing a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, and 

acquisition with knowledge or reason to know that another party used improper means to acquire it.

However, it is not improper to acquire a trade secret or knowledge of the trade secret by any of the 

following:

1. Independent efforts to invent or discover the trade secret;

2. Obtaining the trade secret as a result of a license agreement with the owner of the 

information;

3. Observing the trade secret in public use or on public display; 

4. Obtaining the trade secret from published literature, such as patents, trade journals, 

reference books, the Internet, or other publicly available sources; or

5. Independently deriving the same information GSI claims as a trade secret. Independent 

derivation can mean knowing the information before acquiring the information GSI alleges to 

constitute its trade secrets. Independent derivation can also mean deriving the information from a 

source independent of GSI, or from a source not owned by GSI. 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 23 of 66
24

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

21. MISAPPROPRIATION BY USE 

UMI and/or ISSI misappropriated a GSI trade secret by use if UMI and/or ISSI

1. Used it without GSI’s consent; and

2. Did any of the following:

 At the time of the use, had acquired knowledge of the trade secret by improper means, as

defined in other instructions;

 At the time of use, knew or had reason to know that its knowledge of the trade secret came 

from or through another party, and that another party had previously acquired the trade 

secret by improper means; or

 At the time of use, knew or had reason to know that its knowledge of the trade secret came 

from or through another party, and that another party had a duty to GSI to limit use of the 

trade secret.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 24 of 66
25

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

22. MISAPPROPRIATION BY DISCLOSURE

UMI misappropriated a GSI trade secret by disclosure if UMI 

1. disclosed it without GSI’s consent; and

2. at the time of disclosure, knew or had reason to know that its knowledge of the trade secret 

was acquired under the agreement between GSI and UMI, and the agreement created a duty to keep 

the secret confidential.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 25 of 66
26

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

23. GENERAL SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

A former employee of another company has the right to use general skills, knowledge, and training 

after leaving the job, including for another employer, so long as he or she does not misappropriate 

the former employer’s trade secrets or a third party’s trade secrets known only to the employee by 

virtue of his or her previous employment.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 26 of 66
27

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

24. REMEDIES FOR MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRET 

If GSI proves that ISSI misappropriated a GSI trade secret, then GSI is entitled to recover damages 

if the misappropriation caused GSI to suffer an actual loss or unjustly enriched ISSI.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 27 of 66
28

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

25. CAUSATION: SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR 

A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have 

contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the 

only cause of the harm.

Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without 

that conduct.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 28 of 66
29

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

26. MISAPPROPRIATION – ACTUAL LOSS – LOST PROFITS 

GSI contends that its measure of actual loss caused by UMI’s misappropriation of trade secrets is 

GSI’s lost profits.

To recover damages for lost profits, GSI must prove with reasonable certainty GSI would have 

earned profits but for UMI’s misappropriation of a trade secret. 

To decide the amount of damages for lost profits, you must determine the gross amount GSI would 

have received but for UMI’s conduct and then subtract from that amount the expenses including 

the value of the labor, materials, and manufacturing costs GSI would have had if UMI’s conduct 

had not occurred.

The amount of the lost profits need not be calculated with mathematical precision, but there must 

be a reasonable basis for computing the loss. 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 29 of 66
30

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

27. MISAPPROPRIATION – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

ISSI was unjustly enriched if its misappropriation of GSI’s trade secrets caused ISSI to receive a 

benefit that it otherwise would not have achieved.

To decide the amount of any unjust enrichment, first determine the value of ISSI’s benefit that 

would not have been achieved except for its misappropriation. Then subtract from that amount 

ISSI’s reasonable expenses including the value of the labor and materials. In calculating the 

amount of any unjust enrichment, do not take into account any amount that you included in 

determining any amount of damages for GSI’s actual loss.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 30 of 66
31

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

28. UNFAIR COMPETITION

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.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 31 of 66
32

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

29. “UNFAIR” BUSINESS PRACTICE

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. 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 32 of 66
33

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

30. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC 

RELATIONS – ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

GSI claims that UMI and/or ISSI intentionally interfered with an economic relationship between 

GSI and Cisco that probably would have resulted in an economic benefit to GSI. To establish this 

claim, GSI must prove all of the following:

1. That GSI and Cisco were in an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in 

an economic benefit to GSI;

2. That UMI and/or ISSI knew of the relationship;

3. That UMI and/or ISSI engaged in unfair competition;

4. That by engaging in this conduct, UMI and/or ISSI intended to disrupt the relationship or 

knew that disruption of the relationship was certain or substantially certain to occur;

5. That the relationship was disrupted; 

6. That GSI suffered economic harm; and

7. That UMI and/or ISSI’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing GSI’s harm.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 33 of 66
34

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

31. CAUSATION: SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR

As explained earlier, a substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would 

consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does 

not have to be the only cause of the harm.

Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without 

that conduct.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 34 of 66
35

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

32. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC 

RELATIONS – ACTUAL LOSS – LOST PROFITS

To recover damages for lost profits, GSI must prove it is reasonable certain GSI would have earned 

profits but for UMI and/or ISSI’s intentional interference with prospective economic relations. 

To decide the amount of damages for any lost profits, you must determine the gross amount GSI 

would have received but for UMI and/or ISSI’s conduct and then subtract from that amount the 

expenses including the value of the labor, materials, and manufacturing costs GSI would have had 

if UMI and/or ISSI’s conduct had not occurred.

The amount of the lost profits need not be calculated with mathematical precision, but there must 

be a reasonable basis for computing the loss

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 35 of 66
36

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

33. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – ELEMENTS OF 

LIABILITY

I have already found that GSI entered into a contract with UMI in which UMI agreed (1) not to 

compete with GSI, directly or indirectly, for the design of a LLDRAM chip until at least April 30, 

2013; (2) to protect GSI’s confidential information; and (3) that GSI would own all circuit 

schematics and associated intellectual property, excluding Project Patents and intellectual property 

developed prior to or independent from the contract between GSI and UMI, as “deliverables” under 

the contract. 

For GSI to recover from the UMI on GSI’s claim of breach of contract, you must find either of the 

following have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. UMI failed to comply with its obligation not to compete with GSI, directly or indirectly, for 

the design of an LLDRAM chip; 

2. UMI failed to protect confidential information in GSI’s schematics; or

3. UMI allowed ISSI to access and use circuit schematics and associated intellectual property 

owned by GSI.

If you find that none of these statements have not been proved, then your verdict must be for UMI.

On the other hand, if you find that one or more of these statements have been proved, then you 

must consider UMI’S affirmative defenses.

If you find that UMI proved any one or more of these affirmative defenses by a preponderance of 

the evidence, then your verdict must be for UMI.

However, if you find that none of these affirmative defenses have been proved, then your verdict 

must be for GSI.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 36 of 66
37

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

34. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE – BREACH OF CONTRACT DEFINED

A breach of contract is the failure to perform a contractual promise when performance is due. A 

material breach occurs when a party fails to substantially comply with the essential terms of a 

contract.

In determining whether a breach is material, you may consider the nature of the promised 

performance, the purpose of the contract, and whether any defects in performance have defeated 

the purpose of the contract.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 37 of 66
38

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

35. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – DISPUTED TERM – LLDRAM

GSI and UMI dispute the meaning of the following term contained in the contract:

Article III.6

“Low Latency DRAM Product” means a latency optimized and/or address rate 

optimized memory product that employs a capacitive charge-based memory cell 

technology, including, but not limited to, RLDRAM and FCRAM products.

GSI contends that the term “Low Latency DRAM Product” includes Atris. On the other hand, 

UMI claims that the term does not include Atris.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 38 of 66
39

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

36. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – PARTIES’ INTENT

The statements or conduct of the parties before any dispute arose between them is an indication of 

what the parties intended at the time the contract was formed.

To determine what the parties intended the terms of the contract to mean, you may also consider 

the language of the written agreement, the parties’ negotiations of the contract, any earlier dealings 

between the parties, any reasonable expectations the parties may have had because of the promises 

or conduct of the other party, and any other facts or circumstances that existed at the time that the 

contract was formed.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 39 of 66
40

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

37. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – CONTRACT AS A WHOLE

The entire agreement (with any attachments) is to be considered in determining the existence or 

nature of the contractual duties. You should consider the agreement as a whole and not view 

clauses or phrases in isolation.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 40 of 66
41

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

38. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – ORDINARY MEANING

Words or phrases not defined in a contract should be given their plain, ordinary, and generally 

accepted meaning.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 41 of 66
42

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

39. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – USE OF TECHNICAL WORDS IN A 

CONTRACT

When a contract uses words or phrases from a trade or technical field, those words or phrases 

should be given their usual meaning in that trade or technical field.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 42 of 66
43

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

40. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – SPECIFIC AND GENERAL CLAUSES

Where there is an inconsistency between general and specific provisions in a contract, the specific 

provisions express more exactly what the parties intended.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 43 of 66
44

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

41. CONTRACT DAMAGES – SPECIAL DAMAGES

GSI claims damages for lost profits. These are special damages. 

Under the limitation of liability provision in Section V.3 of the agreement, GSI may only recover 

lost profits for breach of the confidentiality provision in Article VI of the agreement.

The fact that an instruction on measure of damages has been given to you does not mean that I am 

instructing you to award or not to award damages. The question of whether or not damages are to 

be awarded is a question for the jury’s consideration.

To recover for lost profits, in addition to proving that the limitation of liability for special damages 

is not valid, GSI must additionally prove that when the parties made the contract, UMI knew or 

reasonably should have known of the special circumstances leading to GSI’s claimed lost profits.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 44 of 66
45

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

42. LOST PROFITS

To decide the amount of damages for lost profits, you must determine the gross amount GSI would 

have received but for UMI’s conduct and then subtract from that amount the expenses including 

the value of the labor, materials, and manufacturing costs GSI would have had if UMI’s conduct 

had not occurred.

The amount of the lost profits need not be calculated with mathematical precision, but there must 

be a reasonable basis for computing the loss. 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 45 of 66
46

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

43. NOMINAL DAMAGES

If you find in favor of GSI on its breach of contract claim, but do not award any special damages, 

you shall award GSI nominal damages in the sum of one dollar.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 46 of 66
47

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

44. FRAUD – INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION

GSI claims that UMI made a false representation that harmed GSI. To establish this claim, GSI 

must prove all of the following:

1. That UMI represented to GSI that a fact was true;

2. That UMI’S representation was false;

3. That UMI knew that the representation was false when UMI made it, or that UMI made the 

representation recklessly and without regard for its truth;

4. That UMI intended that GSI rely on the representation;

5. That GSI reasonably relied on UMI’S representation;

6. That GSI was harmed; and

7. That GSI’s reliance on UMI’S representation was a substantial factor in causing GSI’s 

harm.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 47 of 66
48

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

45. FALSE PROMISE

GSI claims it was harmed because UMI made a false promise. To establish this claim, GSI must 

prove all of the following:

1. That UMI made a promise to GSI;

2. That UMI did not intend to perform this promise when UMI made it;

3. That UMI intended that GSI rely on this promise;

4. That GSI reasonably relied on UMI’S promise;

5. That UMI did not perform the promised act;

6. That GSI was harmed; and

7. That GSI’s reliance on UMI promise was a substantial factor in causing GSI’s harm.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 48 of 66
49

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

46. RELIANCE

GSI relied on UMI’s misrepresentation or false promise if:

1. The misrepresentation or false promise substantially influenced GSI to engage UMI to 

design the 576 Mb chip for GSI; and

2. GSI would probably not have engaged UMI without the misrepresentation or false promise.

It is not necessary for a misrepresentation or false promise to be the only reason for GSI’s conduct.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 49 of 66
50

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

47. REASONABLE RELIANCE

In determining whether GSI’s reliance on the misrepresentation or false promise was reasonable, 

GSI must first prove that the matter was material. A matter is material if a reasonable person 

would find it important in determining his or her choice of action.

If you decide that the matter is material, you must then decide whether it was reasonable for GSI to 

rely on the misrepresentation or false promise. In making this decision, take into consideration 

GSI’s intelligence, knowledge, education, and experience.

However, it is not reasonable for anyone to rely on a misrepresentation or false promise that is 

preposterous. It also is not reasonable for anyone to rely on a misrepresentation or false promise if

facts that are within its observation show that it is obviously false.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 50 of 66
51

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

48. MEASURES OF TYPES OF DAMAGES

In determining the measure of damages for any UMI false promise, you may award only general 

damages. GSI may not obtain lost profits or potential business opportunity damages, which are 

special damages.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 51 of 66
52

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

49. DAMAGES ARISING IN THE FUTURE – DISCOUNT TO PRESENT CASH 

VALUE

Any award for future economic damages must be for the present cash value of those damages. 

Present cash value means the sum of money needed now, which, when invested at a reasonable rate 

of return, will pay future damages at the times and in the amounts that you find the damages would 

have been received.

The rate of return to be applied in determining present cash value should be the interest that can 

reasonably be expected from safe investments that can be made by a person of ordinary prudence, 

who has ordinary financial experience and skill. You should also consider decreases in the value 

of money which may be caused by future inflation.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 52 of 66
53

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

50. PUNITIVE DAMAGES

If you find for GSI on its misappropriation, intentional interference with prospective economic 

relations, fraud or false promise claims, you may, but are not required to, award punitive damages. 

The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant and to deter similar acts in the future. 

Punitive damages may not be awarded to compensate a plaintiff.

GSI has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence of the evidence that punitive 

damages should be awarded, and, if so, the amount of any such damages.

You may award punitive damages only if you find that UMI and/or ISSI’s conduct that harmed 

GSI was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of GSI’s rights. Conduct is malicious if it is 

accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff. Conduct is in 

reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights if, under the circumstances, it reflects complete 

indifference to the plaintiff’s safety or rights, or if the defendant acts in the face of a perceived risk 

that its actions will violate the plaintiff’s rights under federal law. An act or omission is oppressive 

if the defendant injures or damages or otherwise violates the rights of the plaintiff with unnecessary 

harshness or severity, such as by the misuse or abuse of authority or power or by the taking 

advantage of some weakness or disability or misfortune of the plaintiff.

If you find that punitive damages are appropriate, you must use reason in setting the amount. 

Punitive damages, if any, should be in an amount sufficient to fulfill their purposes but should not 

reflect bias, prejudice or sympathy toward any party. In considering the amount of any punitive 

damages, consider the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct. In addition, you may 

consider the relationship of any award of punitive damages to any actual harm inflicted on the 

plaintiff. You may impose punitive damages against one or more of the defendants and not others, 

and may award different amounts against different defendants. Punitive damages may be awarded 

even if you award GSI only nominal, and not compensatory, damages.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 53 of 66
54

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

51. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – UNCLEAN HANDS

UMI and ISSI each claim as a defense that GSI’s misconduct precludes its enforcement of GSI’s 

claims. To establish this defense, UMI and/or ISSI must prove that GSI’s conduct was 

unconscionable and resulted in prejudice to UMI and/or ISSI.

GSI’s misconduct must be intimately connected with GSI’s claims and of such a prejudicial nature 

that it would be unfair to allow GSI to rely on its claim.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 54 of 66
55

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

52. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION –

INFORMATION WAS READILY ASCERTAINABLE BY PROPER MEANS 

UMI and/or ISSI did not misappropriate a GSI trade secret if UMI and/or ISSI proves that the trade 

secret information in the schematic was readily ascertainable by proper means at the time of the 

alleged misappropriation.

There is no fixed standard for determining what is “readily ascertainable by proper means.” In 

general, information is readily ascertainable if it can be obtained, discovered, developed, or 

compiled without significant difficulty, effort, or expense. For example, information is readily 

ascertainable if it is available in trade journals, reference books, or published materials. On the 

other hand, the more difficult information is to obtain, and the more time and resources that must 

be expended in gathering it, the less likely it is that the information is readily ascertainable by 

proper means.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 55 of 66
56

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

53. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION –

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

If GSI proves that its trade secrets were misappropriated by UMI, then you must consider each and 

every one of UMI’S affirmative defenses. UMI contends that GSI’s claim for misappropriation of 

its alleged trade secrets was not filed within the time set by law. 

UMI will succeed on this defense if it shows that the claimed misappropriation of GSI’s trade 

secrets occurred before August 20, 2010.

If UMI shows that the claimed misappropriation of GSI’s trade secrets occurred before August 20, 

2010, then GSI can only prove that the lawsuit was filed on time if GSI proves that before August 

20, 2010, it did not discover, nor with reasonable diligence should have discovered, facts that 

would have caused a reasonable person to suspect that UMI had misappropriated the information

that GSI claims are its trade secrets. If GSI fails to prove this, then you must enter a verdict for 

UMI.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 56 of 66
57

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

54. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – WAIVER

UMI is not legally responsible to GSI on GSI’s claim of breach of the 2008 contract if the 

affirmative defense of waiver is proved. 

I have already found that no waiver of any term of the contract could be deemed a further or 

continuing waiver of that term.

This defense is proved if you find all of the following:

1. GSI knew that UMI was required to perform a promise by the 2008 contract;

2. GSI knew that failure of UMI to perform this contractual promise gave GSI the right to sue 

UMI for breach of contract;

3. GSI intended to give up this right; and

4. GSI voluntarily gave up this right. 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 57 of 66
58

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

55. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – NON-COMPETE –

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

UMI contends that GSI’s breach of contract claim based upon breach of the covenant not-tocompete embodied in certain provisions of the 2008 contract was not filed within the time set by 

law. 

UMI is not legally responsible to GSI for breach of the non-compete provision of the 2008 contract 

if you find the following:

1. That UMI directly or indirectly, designed or developed, or contributed to the design or 

development of the Atris chip during the term of the 2008 contract at issue, in breach of the express 

language of that contract; and 

2. That GSI knew, or should have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, that UMI

directly or indirectly, designed or developed, or contributed to the design or development of Atris 

during the term of the 2008 contract at issue, in breach of the express language of that contract 

before March 8, 2010 (three years before the filing of the original complaint).

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 58 of 66
59

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

56. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – FRAUD – WAIVER

If GSI proves its fraud claim, then you must consider each of UMI’s affirmative defenses.

UMI is not legally responsible to GSI on its fraud claim if the affirmative defense of waiver is 

proved. This defense is proved if you find both of the following:

1. GSI learned the actual facts after it began performing its obligations under the 2008 

contract, but before it completed them; and

2. GSI continued performing its obligations with full knowledge of the actual facts when a 

reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances would not have done so.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 59 of 66
60

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

57. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – FRAUD – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

UMI is not responsible for GSI’s damages if GSI did not file its fraud claim within the time set by 

law. You only need to consider this defense if you have already determined that GSI has proved its 

fraud claim against UMI.

You must enter a verdict for UMI if you find it is more likely than not that the harm GSI claims 

resulted from the fraud occurred before March 8, 2010, and that GSI could not have discovered the 

fraud before that date.

If you find that GSI’s claimed harm occurred before March 8, 2010, then GSI has the burden to 

show that its fraud claim was still filed on time. To do so, GSI must prove both of the following:

1. GSI must prove that it did not discover facts constituting the fraud or mistake before March 

8, 2010; and

2. GSI must prove that it could not have discovered any such facts even if it had acted with 

reasonable diligence.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 60 of 66
61

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

58. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – ESTOPPEL

UMI and ISSI each claim as a defense that GSI is barred from each of its claims. To establish this 

defense, UMI and/or ISSI must prove all of the following:

(1) That GSI made a representation of fact by words or conduct intending that UMI and/or ISSI 

should rely on it. This conduct may also include silence if GSI had a duty to speak and remained 

silent knowing that the circumstances required it to speak;

(2) That GSI knew the facts;

(3) That UMI and/or ISSI was ignorant of the true state of facts; and

(4) That UMI and/or ISSI reasonably relied on GSI’s representation to UMI and/or ISSI’s injury. 

UMI and/or ISSI’s reliance must be reasonable in the sense that under the circumstances a 

reasonable person would have acted as UMI and/or ISSI did.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 61 of 66
62

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

59. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – MITIGATION OF DAMAGES

If you decide UMI and/or ISSI is responsible for the original harm to GSI, GSI is not entitled to 

recover damages for harm that UMI and/or ISSI proves GSI could have avoided with reasonable 

efforts or expenditures. GSI has a duty to mitigate damages and cannot recover losses it could 

have avoided through reasonable efforts.

You should consider the reasonableness of GSI’s efforts in light of the circumstances facing it at 

the time, including its ability to make the efforts or expenditures without undue risk or hardship. 

If GSI made reasonable efforts to avoid harm, then your damages award to GSI should include 

reasonable amounts that it spent for this purpose.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 62 of 66
63

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

60. SCHEMATICS BEYOND GSI’S 25 TRADE SECRET CLAIMS

You have heard testimony about schematics other than the 25 schematics GSI claims as trade 

secrets in this lawsuit, including testimony about 273 or so “non-trade secret” schematics.

The Court has ruled that GSI has no claim against ISSI regarding ISSI’s acquisition or use of any 

schematic other than the 25 schematics claimed as trade secrets. In other words, you cannot find 

against ISSI and in favor of GSI with regards to liability or damages based on ISSI’s acquisition or 

use of the 273 or so “non-trade secret” schematics.

Evidence regarding schematics beyond the 25 trade secret claims may nevertheless be considered 

on other issues, such as 

1. GSI’s breach of contract claim against United Memories; 

2. Whether ISSI knew or should have known that at some point it had in its possession GSI 

trade secrets; and 

3. Whether GSI brought this lawsuit in bad faith.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 63 of 66
64

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

61. CONTENTION OF MISAPPROPRIATION CLAIMED IN BAD FAITH

If you conclude that GSI has not proved its misappropriation claim, you should determine whether 

GSI brought the claim in bad faith. GSI filed the misappropriation claim on October 3, 2013 in the 

Second Amended Complaint. To prove GSI brought its misappropriation claim in bad faith, ISSI 

must prove by clear and convincing evidence 

1. That GSI’s misappropriation claim is objectively specious and 

2. That GSI acted in subjective bad faith in bringing or maintaining the claim. 

An objectively specious claim is defined as one without substance in reality. To show subjective 

bad faith, ISSI must prove that GSI engaged in misconduct that is at least reckless or grossly 

negligent, if not intentionally negligent and willful.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 64 of 66
65

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

62. INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL VERDICT FORM 

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.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 65 of 66
66

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

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1042 Filed 11/22/15 Page 66 of 66