Opinion ID: 984451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: convolve’s claims

Text: In 1998, Convolve and Compaq began licensing negotiations regarding Convolve’s technology. To facilitate the discussions, Convolve and Compaq signed a non- disclosure Agreement (“NDA”) and agreed to share their respective confidential information for “furthering a business relationship.” J.A. at 820. The confidential information to be disclosed was described as “storage peripheral market information and technology information” from Compaq and “algorithms and processes for enhancing positioning systems” from Convolve. Id. The NDA states that, to trigger either party’s obligations, the disclosed information must be: (1) marked as confidential at the time of disclosure; or (2) unmarked, but treated as CONVOLVE v. COMPAQ COMPUTER 9 confidential at the time of disclosure, and later designated confidential in a written memorandum summarizing and identifying the confidential information. The NDA explicitly excludes from its scope any information that: (1) the recipient possessed prior to disclosure; (2) was a matter of public knowledge; (3) was received from a third party without a duty of confidentiality attached; (4) was independently developed by the recipient; (5) was disclosed under operation of law; or (6) was disclosed by the recipient with the discloser’s prior written approval. The NDA covered any confidential disclosures between August 13, 1998 and October 15, 2000. Compaq made personal computers, but did not itself manufacture disk drives. Compaq instead purchased disk drives from third parties, including Seagate, to incorporate into its computers. Compaq asked if Seagate could be involved in evaluating Convolve’s technology. Seagate designs, manufactures, and sells hard disk drives for computers. Convolve agreed to share information with Seagate upon execution of a similar NDA. Seagate was to share “business and technical information related to servo systems for disc drives, including: present and future product plans, specifications, and drawings.” J.A. at 293. Convolve agreed to share “feed forward and closed loop techniques for improving disc drive seek and settle performance.” Id. The purpose of sharing the information was for “evaluation and testing.” Id. All written materials clearly marked “confidential” (or something comparable) were within the scope of the protections of the NDA. For an oral disclosure to be within the scope of the NDA, it must have been designated confidential at the time of disclosure and followed by a written memorandum within twenty (20) days of disclosure clearly providing notice of what specific information was confidential. The exclusions are largely the same as the exclusions in the Convolve-Compaq NDA. The NDA covered any confidential 10 CONVOLVE v. COMPAQ COMPUTER disclosures between October 14, 1998 and December 31, 2000. With the NDAs in place, Compaq, Seagate, and Con- volve had a meeting on October 15 and 16, 1998, during which Convolve gave a presentation regarding its input shaping technology and its application to computer disk drives. After the meeting, the parties acknowledged in writing that any oral disclosure of confidential information during that meeting was covered by the NDAs. Convolve gave two other presentations to Compaq and Seagate, on February 10 and April 7, 1999. Although Convolve sent Seagate copies of the slides from the February presentation and a letter discussing the April demonstration, Convolve did not state in writing that any of the disclosures during or in connection with those later meetings were confidential. Despite these meetings and continued communications, Convolve never consummated a deal with Compaq and Seagate regarding the technology. Convolve filed suit against Seagate and Compaq on July 13, 2000. On January 16, 2002, Convolve amended its complaint alleging against both Seagate and Compaq: (1) breach of contract; (2) tortious interference with contract; (3) fraud; (4) misappropriation of trade secrets; (5) patent infringement of the ’473 patent, ’635 patent and U.S. Patent No. 5,638,267 (“the ’267 patent”); 2 (6) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 (“California Unfair Competition”); (7) breach of confi- 2 The parties, and the district court, do not clearly indicate which claims were originally at issue in this case. The district court’s claim construction order reveals that Convolve originally asserted claim 1–4, 7, 11, 21, and 24 of the ’635 patent, claims 19, 29, 39, and 55 of the ’267 patent, and claims 1, 3, 4, and 7–15 of the ’473 patent. J.A. at 89.1–89.2. CONVOLVE v. COMPAQ COMPUTER 11 dence; and (8) breach of good faith and fair dealing. In March 2006, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Seagate and disposed of Convolve’s claims of fraud, tortious interference with contract, breach of confidence, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition statute. Later, in March 2010, the district court dismissed Convolve’s ’267 patent from the case. In August 2011, the district court issued its order from which this appeal derives, dismissing Convolve’s claims of breach of contract, infringement of the asserted claims of the ’473 and ’635 patents, and misappropriation of a subset of the trade secrets asserted against Compaq and Seagate.