Opinion ID: 220657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Silvaco-based arguments

Text: Donald Bowers next argues that, even assuming the DialHD products incorporated the Honeybee object code or modified versions thereof, he could not, as a matter of law, be held responsible for misappropriating ClearOne's trade secret because there is no evidence he ever had possession of the Honeybee source code. In support of this argument, he cites to the California Court of Appeal's decision in Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp., 184 Cal.App.4th 210, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 (2010). The plaintiff in that case, Silvaco, was the developer of electronic design automation software, i.e., software used to design electronic circuits and systems. Silvaco filed suit against defendant Intel, a developer and manufacturer of integrated circuits, alleging that Intel had misappropriated certain trade secrets used by Silvaco in its software products. The primary gist of the claims was that Intel had used software acquired from another software concern with knowledge that Silvaco had accused that concern of incorporating source code, stolen from Silvaco [by former employees], in its products. Id. at 34. The chief question presented in the case was whether Intel could be liable for such use if, as was effectively undisputed, it never possessed or had access to the source code but only had executable, machine-readable code compiled by its supplier from source code. Id. The California Court of Appeal answer[ed] that question in the negative. Id. Specifically, the court held: One does not, by executing machine-readable software, `use' the underlying source code; nor does one acquire the requisite knowledge of any trade secrets embodied in that code. Id. Although Donald Bowers suggests that the instant case is indistinguishable from Silvaco, we disagree. ClearOne has not asserted any claims against Donald Bowers in the underlying suit. Instead, Donald Bowers was found by the district court to have been in active concert or participation with the WideBand defendants in violating the district court's restraining and injunctive orders by producing and selling products that utilized the misappropriated trade secret. Consequently, it was unnecessary for ClearOne to establish the essential elements of a trade secret misappropriation claim against Donald Bowers. Instead, all ClearOne had to establish was that Donald Bowers violated the terms of the district court's injunctive orders. Consequently, Silvaco is inapposite. Donald Bowers also argues that ClearOne could not make a trade secret misappropriation claim based on the use of the [Honeybee] object code because that code is readily accessible to the public.  Aplt. Br. at 35 (italics in original). Again, however, ClearOne has not asserted any causes of action against Donald Bowers in the underlying case. Instead, ClearOne alleged, and the district court found, that Donald Bowers, in active concert or participation with the WideBand defendants, violated the district court's injunctive orders. [3]