Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01268/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01268-35/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIRAM TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

MONOLITHIC SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY,

INC, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 04-1268 VRW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: TSMC'S

INTERROGATORIES Nos. 22 and 23 

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint meet and confer letter, dated January 17, 2007,

regarding plaintiff UniRAM Technology, Inc.'s ("UniRAM") response to defendant Taiwan

Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.'s ("TSMC") Interrogatories Nos. 22 and 23. The

Court ordered further briefing on January 23, 2007 regarding whether conception and reduction to

practice are relevant to trade secret claims. TSMC filed its response on January 30, 2007, and

UniRAM filed its response on February 6, 2007. TSMC alleges that conception and reduction to

practice are relevant to UniRAM's trade secret misappropriation claims. Specifically, TSMC asserts

that discovery of UniRAM's conception and reduction to practice will help it rebut UniRAM's theory

of how the trade secrets developed, and the dates of conception and reduction to practice will help

focus the parties' discovery efforts. In response, UniRAM argues that conception and reduction to

practice are only relevant in the patent context and are irrelevant to trade secret misappropriation

claims. Upon review of the parties' submissions, the Court finds that the dates of UniRAM's

conception and reduction to practice of its alleged trade secrets are relevant to the subject matter of

the suit for discovery purposes. 

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 350 Filed 02/26/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

A trade secret is information that is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy, and

which derives actual or potential independent economic value from not being generally known to the

public. Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d). Thus, there is no requirement that the holder of a trade secret

ever conceive of an operative invention, only that the information possessed have some economic

value from not being generally known, even if it is only potential economic value. Id. Similarly,

there is no requirement that the holder of a trade secret ever reduce the secret to practice, only that

the holder use reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy of the information. Id. 

Each party has the right to discover any matter that is relevant to the claim or defense of any

party, so long as the matter is not privileged. Fed .R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In addition, the court may

permit discovery of information that is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation after a showing

of good cause. Id. Contrary to UniRAM's position, the relevance of conception and reduction to

practice is not necessarily limited to patent cases. In Burton Inc. v. Foreman, 148 F.R.D. 230, 234

(N. Dist. Ind. 1992), the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held that the dates of the

defendant's conception and reduction to practice of a vacuum interface valve were relevant for

discovery purposes to the subject matter of the plaintiff's trade secrets misappropriation claim. The

claim in Burton was based on the theory that the defendant used trade secrets appropriated from his

previous employment with the plaintiff's vacuum interface valve company to produce a vacuum

interface valve for a subsequent employer. Id. at 233. The court found that the dates of the

defendant's conception and reduction to practice were probative as to whether the defendant used

trade secrets gained through his prior employment with the plaintiff. Id. at 233-34. Though not

binding on this Court, the Burton opinion provides an example of how conception and reduction to

practice may be relevant to trade secret misappropriation.

Here, TSMC has shown good cause for discovery of the dates of UniRAM's conception and

reduction to practice because they will likely narrow the focus of discovery, establish some time line

for UniRAM's duty to maintain secrecy, better prepare the parties for trial, facilitate settlement, and

assist the parties in evaluating the case. However, the details of UniRAM's conception and

reduction to practice are not relevant they are not requirements for a trade secrets misappropriation

claim, nor are conception and reduction to practice relevant to a defense of UniRAM's claims. The

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 350 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Court need not reach the question of whether conception and reduction to practice are relevant to the

subject matter generally, as no good cause has been shown for discovery beyond the dates of

conception and reduction to practice. 

Accordingly, UniRAM shall provide the dates of conception and reduction to practice for

each alleged trade secret for which conception and reduction to practice actually occurred. 

However, UniRAM need not provide the details of conception and reduction to practice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 350 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 3