Jasmine Networds v. Marvell Semiconductor CA6

Filed 7/17/13 Jasmine Networds v. Marvell Semiconductor CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JASMINE NETWORKS, INC., H036684 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. CV801411)

v.

MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Jasmine Networks, Inc. (Jasmine) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of respondent Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (Marvell). Jasmine sued Marvell on three primary claims: misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional interference with contractual relations. After a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Marvell on all of Jasmine’s causes of action. On appeal, Jasmine argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) because Marvell utilized Jasmine’s trade secrets as a matter of law when it discussed potential liability for using Jasmine’s trade secrets in a recorded voicemail. Second, Jasmine argues that the jury’s verdict should be reversed because the trial court incorrectly failed to give preclusive effect to Marvell’s voluntary dismissal of its cross- complaint with prejudice. We find that the trial court did not err in denying Jasmine’s motion for a new trial as the motion was primarily based on a legal theory not tried before the jury and premised

upon disputed facts. Furthermore, we find that Jasmine’s theory that Marvell’s voicemail constituted “use” of a trade secret is without merit. Additionally, we determine that Marvell’s evidence of Jasmine’s alleged wrongdoing in the development of JSLIP was not barred under the doctrine of res judicata, and that the trial court did not err in declining to grant Jasmine’s pretrial motion in limine to exclude the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Jasmine and Marvell are both technology companies with a focus on developing semiconductor chips. Jasmine represented that it had developed a packet switch fabric. A packet switch fabric is a code used in an Internet router that directs the flow of information packets. There are two components to a packet switch fabric, a switch and a scheduler. A switch directs incoming information to an outgoing link. A scheduler determines what sequence each packet of information will be delivered so that the information packets do not “collide,” rendering the information corrupt. A scheduler is vitally important to a router, as the efficiency of the scheduler ultimately impacts the router speed. Jasmine’s scheduler was named JSLIP.1 The Development of Jasmine’s JSLIP Scheduler Prior to the development of JSLIP, Dr. Nicholas McKeown developed a scheduler called ISLIP, which was patented by the Regents of the University of California as McKeown developed the code as a Ph.D. student at the University of California, Berkeley. Also prior to the development of JSLIP, McKeown developed a scheduler called ESLIP while working at Cisco, another technology company, which Cisco then