Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06124/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06124-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
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

CHAMPION DANIEL MUTHLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAP.IO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C 19-06124 WHA 

PRE-FILING ORDER RE 

VEXATIOUS LITIGATION

In this serial trade-secret litigation, defendants prevail (again) and ask for relief from 

further suit by pro se plaintiff Champion Daniel Muthle. The request is GRANTED. 

Prior orders detail the facts of the case (Dkt. No. 42). In brief, pro se plaintiff accuses 

defendants of infringing his intellectual property. In April 2017, Mr. Muthle disclosed a pitch 

deck to solicit defendants’ investment in his business venture. Defendants released a product 

shortly after which, plaintiff alleges, was “a virtually identical, mirror-image” of his technology 

(ibid.).

In 2018, Mr. Muthle or his counsel (at the time), sent several letters alleging defendants’ 

misappropriation of trade secrets (Dkt. No. 61-1 at 22) culminating in a June 2018 cease and 

desist letter threating legal action (Dkt. No. 61-4). Defendants filed for declaratory judgment in 

the Central District of California. SAP America, Inc. v. Adheat, Inc., No. C 18-05764-JFW 

(Dkt. No. 61-5). The parties settled (Dkt. No. 12-3) and on October 4, 2018, agreed to drop all

their claims against each other and walk away peaceably (ibid.).

Case 3:19-cv-06124-WHA Document 76 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 4
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

In June 2019, however, Mr. Muthle sued in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Muthle v. 

SAP.io, e al., No. 19CV349552, and defendants removed to this court (Dkt. No. 1). Because 

Mr. Muthle did not reference the prior suit or settlement agreement, an October 31 order (Dkt. 

No. 42) converted Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 13) to dismiss (which relied on the settlement 

agreement) into a motion for summary judgment and gave Mr. Muthle the opportunity to take 

discovery to test the validity of the settlement agreement. 

Mr. Muthle then filed three oppositions to the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos.

16, 44, and 51), a declaration swearing the settlement agreement was invalid because his assent 

was garnered via duress (Dkt. No. 52), and his own motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 

34). An order dated October 31, 2019 stayed briefing on Muthle’s motion for summary 

judgment (Dkt. No. 40) and a November 22 order denied Muthle’s motion to quash the stay 

and “request[ed] plaintiff . . . not file additional motions until SAP’s summary judgment 

motion is determined unless plaintiff feels the motion is necessary for proper resolution of 

SAP’s pending summary judgment motion” (Dkt. No. 59) (emphasis added). Undeterred, Mr. 

Muthle filed a second motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 65) and briefing was again 

stayed pending resolution of the original motion, by defendants (Dkt. No. 68). 

At a January 2 case management conference, both Mr. Muthle and counsel for defendants 

acknowledged the upcoming motion hearing. The January 23 hearing came and went, but Mr. 

Muthle never appeared. Noting his absence at the scheduled time, 8:00 a.m., the Court delayed 

calling his case until approximately 9:00 a.m. Mr. Muthle still absent, the Court again waited 

and called his case shortly after 10:00 a.m., but to no avail. Defendants submitted their motion 

on the papers, and an order granting summary judgment issued later that day (Dkt. No. 73). At 

the close of the hearing, defendants requested relief from further suit. 

Mr. Muthle himself triggered the first lawsuit by accusing defendants of trade secret 

misappropriation. He then sued defendants again — for the same alleged conduct — in 

violation of the settlement agreement. And Mr. Muthle’s failure to acknowledge the prior suit 

and settlement in his complaint (taken in his favor as artful drafting and not deceit) bumped him 

forward to summary judgment where he filed multiple briefs, motions, and had the opportunity 

Case 3:19-cv-06124-WHA Document 76 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 4
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

Northern District of California

to take discovery. Yet Mr. Muthle failed to appear and prosecute his case when the opportunity 

was presented. But, to be clear: the order granting summary judgment and this order are 

founded on the merits, or more precisely the lack of merit, not on Mr. Muthle’s failure to appear 

at the hearing. 

This order holds Mr. Muthle has had a fair opportunity to bring and have heard his claims 

for trade-secret misappropriation. Mr. Muthle shall not file further complaints against any 

defendant in any state or federal court, arising out of the April 2017 meeting with defendants 

and alleged intellectual property misappropriation thereafter, without prior approval from the 

undersigned. 

* * *

Just as the undersigned prepared to file this pre-filing order, Mr. Muthle filed an 

objection (Dkt. No. 75) to the January 23 order granting summary judgment to defendants

(Dkt. No. 73). Mr. Muthle claims he was not informed of the January 23 hearing. 

This is factually false. On November 7, Mr. Muthle requested electronic case filing 

permission (Dkt. No. 45). A November 12 order granted the request (Dkt. No. 46), and a

November 22 order set “[t]he hearing on the summary judgment motion . . . for January 23, 

2020 at 8:00 am” (Dkt. No. 59) (emphasis omitted). The electronic filing receipt confirmed a 

copy of the order was electronically mailed to Mr. Muthle’s specified email address. On 

December 3, he filed a motion for clarification about the November 22 order (Dkt. No. 64) and 

the electronic filing description of the motion explicitly referenced the docket number of the 

prior order. Mr. Muthle, thus, had notice of the hearing.

Even if he did not have actual notice of the hearing, Mr. Muthle was served with notice at 

the proper email address. His notice of a new address (Dkt. No. 74) does not undermine the 

sufficiency of notice sent to the proper address at the time. Notice regarding the January 23 

hearing was proper. The order granting summary judgment (Dkt. No. 73) and this order will 

stand. 

Case 3:19-cv-06124-WHA Document 76 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 4
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

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2020. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-06124-WHA Document 76 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 4