Opinion ID: 984451
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: claims against compaq

Text: Convolve finally argues that the district court erred by granting Compaq summary judgment on all trade secrets-in-suit even though ATSI 2B and 3A survived Seagate’s motion for summary judgment. The district court found that Convolve only accused Compaq of misappropriating ATSIs 6 and 7 and that Convolve’s breach of contract claim against Compaq was predicated solely on the unlawful disclosure and use of ATSI 7A. The district court thus granted summary judgment in favor of Compaq based on its earlier noted findings as to ATSI 6 and 7A. Convolve now contends that it had always accused Compaq of misappropriating all of Convolve’s trade secrets, and that the district court’s judgment for Compaq must be vacated. We are unconvinced. During discovery, Compaq asked Convolve to identify “each and every” alleged trade secret Convolve contended Compaq disclosed to Seagate. In response, Convolve only identified ATSI 6 and 7A. That response made sense; Compaq is not in the disk drive business and all trade secrets other than ATSI 6 and 7A involve the development of such drives. ATSIs 6 and 7, on the other hand, are directed to the Quick and Quiet graphical user interface and marketing secrets, which are apropos to Compaq’s business. As such, we find that the district court properly found that Convolve’s allegations against ComCONVOLVE v. COMPAQ COMPUTER 29 paq for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract were predicated only on ATSI 6 and 7, and that summary judgment in favor of Compaq was proper.