Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 19
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` Stephen Swedlow (Admitted Pro hac vice)
` stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone:
`(312) 705-7400
`Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
`
` David Eiseman (Bar No. 114758)
` davideiseman@quinnemanuel.com
` Victoria B. Parker (Bar No. 290862)
` vickiparker@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-4788
`(415) 875-6600
`Telephone:
`(415) 875-6700
`Facsimile:
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Rivos Inc. and Wen
`Shih-Chieh a/k/a Ricky Wen
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Case No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`
`DEFENDANT RIVOS INC.’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`January 19, 2023
`Date:
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 4
`Judge:
` The Hon. Edward J. Davila
`
`Trial Date: None Set
`
`15
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`RIVOS INC., WEN SHIH-CHIEH a/k/a
`RICKY WEN and BHASI KAITHAMANA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AND
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on January 19, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`4
`
`the matter may be heard in the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Edward J. Davila presiding,
`
`5
`
`located at the San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA
`
`6
`
`95113, Defendant Rivos Inc. will and hereby does move this Court for an order dismissing Plaintiff
`
`7
`
`Apple Inc.’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The
`
`8
`
`motion is made on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be
`
`9
`
`granted.
`
`10
`
`This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum
`
`11
`
`of Points and Authorities, the other pleadings and filings on record in this action, as well as other
`
`12
`
`written or oral argument that Rivos Inc. may present to the Court.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
`LLP
`
`By
`
`/s/ Stephen Swedlow
`STEPHEN SWEDLOW
`DAVID EISEMAN
`VICTORIA B. PARKER
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Rivos Inc. and Wen
`Shih-Chieh a/k/a Ricky Wen
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`DATED: June 30, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`3
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
`
`4
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS IN APPLE’S COMPLAINT.............................................2
`
`5
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .....................................................................................................4
`
`6
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................5
`
`A.
`
`Apple’s Complaint Does Not State Specific Facts Sufficient to Sustain A
`Claim Of Misappropriation Against Rivos ............................................................5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Apple Fails To Demonstrate Ownership Of Any Trade Secret ....................5
`
`Apple Fails To Plausibly Allege Direct Misappropriation By Rivos ............7
`
`Apple Fails To Plausibly Allege Indirect Misappropriation ........................9
`
`Apple Fails To Allege Any Damages.......................................................10
`
`B.
`
`Generalized Allegations that Unidentified Apple Employees Have Moved
`to Rivos Are Insufficient to Support a Misappropriation Claim ............................10
`
`C.
`
`Apple Cannot Conduct Discovery Before Alleging A Viable Claim .....................12
`
`CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 4 of 19
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`AlterG, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC,
` 388 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................. 6
`
`Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Tarantino,
` 498 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...............................................................................7, 8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
` 556 U.S. 662 (2009).........................................................................................................4, 13
`
`Broam v. Bogan,
` 320 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. v. Topcon Med. Sys., Inc.,
` No. 19-4162 SBA, 2019 WL 11499334 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2019) ....................................... 12
`
`CleanFish, LLC v. Sims,
` No. 19-CV-03663-HSG, 2020 WL 4732192 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2020) .................................. 6
`
`Comp. Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Grp., Inc.,
` 50 F.Supp.2d 980 (S.D. Cal. May 25, 1999)........................................................................... 7
`
`Cooper Interconnect, Inc. v. Glenair, Inc,
` No. CV1408018RGKJCX, 2015 WL 13722129 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2015).............................. 10
`
`Cotiviti, Inc. v. Deagle,
` 501 F. Supp. 3d 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) .................................................................................. 13
`
`Delacruz v. State Bar of California,
` No. 16-CV-06858-BLF, 2017 WL 3129207 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2017) .................................. 13
`
`Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP,
` 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008)........................................................................................................... 11
`Farhang v. Indian Inst. of Tech., Kharagpur,
` No. C-08-02658 RMW, 2010 WL 2228936 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2010)...................................... 8
`
`Fayer v. Vaughn,
` 649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`Globespan, Inc. v. O’Neill,
` 151 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (C.D. Cal. 2001) .................................................................................. 8
`
`Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Med. Grp.,
` 896 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
` 536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`Jobscience, Inc. v. CVPartners, Inc.,
` No. C 13-04519 WHA, 2014 WL 852477 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014)....................................... 7
`
`Kaplan v. California Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys.,
` No. C 98-1246 CRB, 1998 WL 575095 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 1998),
` aff’d, 221 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................... 13
`
`KapStone Container Corp. v. Boyd,
` No. 1:17-CV-01902-TWT, 2017 WL 4948074 (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2017) .............................. 12
`
`Lamont v. Conner,
` No. 5:18-CV-04327-EJD, 2019 WL 1369928 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) ................................ 6
`
`-ii-
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`M/A-COM Tech. Sols., Inc. v. Litrinium, Inc.,
` No. SACV19220JVSJDEX, 2019 WL 6655274 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2019) ............................. 8
`
`Navigation Holdings, LLC v. Molavi,
` 445 F. Supp. 3d 69 (N.D. Cal. 2020)............................................................................... 5, 8, 9
`
`Pellerin v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.,
` 877 F. Supp. 2d 983 (S.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................... 9
`
`R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Marino,
` 505 F. Supp. 3d 194 (W.D.N.Y. 2020)............................................................................10, 12
`
`Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Ass’n, Inc.,
` Nos. C 08-4548 MHP, C 08-4719 MHP, 2010 WL 145098 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2010) ............... 4
`
`S. California No. CV 10-8026 PSG (AJWx), Inst. of Law v. TCS Educ. Sys.,
` No. CV 10-8026 PSG (AJWx), 2011 WL 1296602 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2011) ........................... 9
`
`Soc. Apps, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.,
` No. 4:11-CV-04910 YGR, 2012 WL 2203063 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2012) ............................... 6
`
`Space Data Corp. v. X,
` No. 16-CV-03260-BLF, 2017 WL 5013363 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) ................................... 7
`
`Spice Jazz LLC v. Youngevity Int’l, Inc.,
` No. 19-CV-0583-BAS-DEB, 2020 WL 6484640 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2020) .............................. 9
`
`Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE,
` No. 18-CV-03670-WHO, 2018 WL 6528009 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2018) ................................. 6
`
`Tri Cnty. Tel. Association, Inc. v. Campbell,
` No. 17-CV-089-F, 2018 WL 10399165 (D. Wyo. Apr. 17, 2018) ......................................... 13
`
`UCAR Tech. (USA) Inc. v. Yan Li,
` No. 5:17-cv-01704-EJD, 2017 WL 6405620 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017) ................................ 12
`
`United States v. Corinthian Colleges,
` 655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Valenzuela v. City of Calexico,
` No. 14-CV-481-BAS-PCL, 2015 WL 2184304 (S.D. Cal. May 11, 2015) ............................. 13
`
`Vendavo, Inc. v. Price f(x) AG,
` No. 17-CV-06930-RS, 2018 WL 1456697 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018) ..................................... 6
`
`Via Techs., Inc. v. Asus Computer Int’l,
` No. 14-CV-03586-BLF, 2016 WL 1056139 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016) ................................... 6
`
`Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co.,
` 101 Cal. App. 4th 1443 (2002) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Statutory Authorities
`
`18 U.S.C.A. § 1836(b) ............................................................................................................... 5
`
`24
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)-(ii) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1839 ....................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Miscellaneous
`
`S. REP. NO. 114- 220 (2016)................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`2
`
`Every person who lives and works in California has the right to pursue the employment of
`
`3
`
`his or her choice, and even to compete in the marketplace against his or her former employer.
`
`4
`
`Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) apparently wishes this was not the law and seeks to enlist this Court
`
`5
`
`in preventing its ex-employees from working for a potential competitor,1 irrespective of whether
`
`6
`
`any misconduct actually occurred.
`
`7
`
`To achieve its anticompetitive goals, Apple brings a claim for misappropriation of trade
`
`8
`
`secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) against Defendant Rivos Inc. (“Rivos”)
`
`9
`
`without alleging any of the requisite elements of the claim. Apple has not identified its alleged trade
`
`10
`
`secrets with sufficient particularity and provides no allegations of any misappropriation by Rivos,
`
`11
`
`much less any harm caused by such misappropriation. Indeed, Apple’s complaint is bereft of any
`
`12
`
`allegations that Rivos actually acquired, used, or disclosed any of Apple’s trade secrets. Instead,
`
`13
`
`Apple alleges that two of its former employees, Defendants Ricky Wen (“Wen”) and Bhasi
`
`14
`
`Kaithamana (“Kaithamana”), retained unspecified Apple trade secrets after their employment with
`
`15
`
`Apple ended and that they later went to work for Rivos. Not only does Apple fail to allege that Wen
`
`16
`
`or Kaithamana actually used or disclosed Apple’s trade secrets but, more importantly for this
`
`17
`
`motion, Apple’s complaint lacks any factual allegations that Rivos ever acquired, used, or disclosed
`
`18
`
`any of Apple’s trade secrets. Instead, Apple’s claim of misappropriation by Rivos is supported by
`
`19
`
`pure legal conclusions made on information and belief.
`
`20
`
`In an effort to buttress its feeble allegations, Apple attempts to create a specter of misconduct
`
`21
`
`by Rivos by alleging that, in addition to Wen and Kaithamana, other unnamed individuals also left
`
`22
`
`Apple to work at Rivos. Apple’s allegations, however, do not demonstrate any misconduct; instead,
`
`23
`
`they just reflect their former employees’ decisions to exercise their right to employment mobility.
`
`24
`
`Stretching mightily, Apple also asks the Court to assume that Wen, Kaithamana, and these
`
`25
`
`anonymous individuals “were likely to make use of [Apple’s trade secrets] in the course of their
`
`26
`
`employment at Rivos.” (Compl. ¶ 80, emphasis added.) But this legal theory, known as “inevitable
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1 In this lawsuit, Apple alleges that Rivos is a competitor. But currently, the only market where
`Apple and Rivos compete is the market for employees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`disclosure,” has been so thoroughly rejected by the courts that proceeding under the theory exposes
`
`2
`
`Apple to sanctions.
`
`3
`
`Finally, in a concession that its current allegations are lacking, Apple’s complaint expresses
`
`4
`
`Apple’s desire to conduct a fishing expedition through Rivos’ confidential and commercially
`
`5
`
`sensitive information to attempt to find actual facts to support its misappropriation claim against
`
`6
`
`Rivos. This is improper. Apple’s “belief” that discovery could uncover evidence of
`
`7
`
`misappropriation by Rivos is insufficient to support its misappropriation claim.
`
`8
`
`Apple has thus failed to plead a plausible claim for misappropriation of trade secrets against
`
`9
`
`Rivos, and its complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as to Rivos.
`
`10
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS IN APPLE’S COMPLAINT2
`
`11
`
`Rivos is a startup that is developing a System on a Chip (“SOC”) using open-source
`
`12
`
`architecture. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 32. Although other SOCs exist in the marketplace that rely on
`
`13
`
`proprietary system architecture, Rivos aims to be one of the first companies to successfully build
`
`14
`
`and commercialize an SOC for data centers using the open-source RISC-V architecture. Since its
`
`15
`
`founding in May 2021, Rivos has attracted engineers from around Silicon Valley and the world to
`
`16
`
`work on its innovative technology. Starting in June 2021, Apple engineers resigned from their jobs
`
`17
`
`at Apple to take positions at Rivos. Compl. ¶ 33. Wen and Kaithamana resigned from Apple in
`
`18
`
`August 2021. Compl. ¶¶ 43, 53. As described in Apple’s complaint, Wen and Kaithamana removed
`
`19
`
`personal information off their Apple-issued devices before returning those devices to Apple by, for
`
`20
`
`example, deleting browsing history. Compl. ¶¶ 46, 54. Wen also allegedly transferred files from
`
`21
`
`his Apple-laptop to a personal device, including approximately 200 gigabytes of photos and movies
`
`22
`
`that are “presume[d] personal in nature[.]” Compl. ¶ 52. In addition to this personal information,
`
`23
`
`Apple alleges that these transfers included Apple information and thus surmises that Wen and
`
`24
`
`Kaithamana retained Apple proprietary and trade secret information after resigning from Apple.
`
`25
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 42-45, 52-56. Apple alleges that it faces “irreparable injury . . . as a result of [Wen and
`
`26
`
`Kaithamana’s] breach” and “is threatened with losing its competitive advantage, trade secrets,
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2 Rivos is accepting the allegations in Apple’s complaint as true, solely for purposes of this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`customers, and technology goodwill in amounts that would be impossible to fully compensate[.]”
`
`2
`
`Compl. ¶ 72.
`
`3
`
`Yet, in the face of this purported “irreparable injury” and potential loss of its competitive
`
`4
`
`advantage, Apple waited eight months after Wen and Kaithamana resigned from Apple to file this
`
`5
`
`lawsuit in April 2022. Apple asserts claims for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade
`
`6
`
`secrets under the DTSA against Wen and Kaithamana, and asserts a single claim for
`
`7
`
`misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA against Rivos, which subsequently employed
`
`8
`
`Wen and Kaithamana.3 Relying solely on generalized legal conclusions, Apple asserts no factual
`
`9
`
`allegations that Rivos has acquired, used, or disclosed Apple trade secrets. Indeed, Apple effectively
`
`10
`
`acknowledges the deficiency of its complaint, stating that it “believes that further discovery will
`
`11
`
`likely show that Apple’s trade secret information has been improperly disclosed to Rivos and used
`
`12
`
`by Rivos[.]” Compl. ¶ 80.
`
`13
`
`Apple’s complaint also includes allegations regarding other unnamed individuals who
`
`14
`
`purportedly left Apple to work for Rivos. Compl. ¶¶ 58, 61-62. Apple’s complaint does not attempt
`
`15
`
`to specify any wrongdoing, much less identify any trade secrets that these employees retained, and
`
`16
`
`instead simply generalizes that “employees were accessing a large amount of Apple trade secret
`
`17
`
`information” before their terminations (without any allegation that this was unusual or improper
`
`18
`
`given their job responsibilities). Id. ¶ 61. Apple also alleges that two of these employees
`
`19
`
`communicated via encrypted messaging apps, and that some wiped their Apple computers in
`
`20
`
`violation of Apple policy. Id. ¶¶ 59, 64. Apple alleges that it “has reason to believe that Rivos
`
`21
`
`instructed” some unidentified employees to download encrypted messaging apps, but articulates no
`
`22
`
`facts in support of this belief, much less explains how such conduct constitutes trade secret
`
`23
`
`misappropriation. Id. ¶ 34. Notably, Apple does not allege that Rivos instructed any employee to
`
`24
`
`download files from Apple, or that Rivos instructed employees to use any Apple information during
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`3 For reasons unrelated to the allegations in Apple’s complaint, Kaithamana is no longer an
`employee of Rivos. Apple has acknowledged that Kaithamana is no longer an employee at Rivos.
`Dkt. 23-1 at 14.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 9 of 19
`
`1
`
`the course of their employment at Rivos. Nor does Apple also allege that Rivos has acquired or
`
`2
`
`used any Apple information.
`
`3
`
`In the face of Apple’s unsupported “belief” that some misappropriation has occurred, Rivos
`
`4
`
`has repeatedly requested that Apple articulate a basis for why Rivos is a proper defendant in this
`
`5
`
`lawsuit.4 See Dkt. 27-10, Dkt. 27-14. In response, Apple has only provided a meaningless, two
`
`6
`
`word response as to why Rivos is properly named: “it is.” Dkt. 27-11.
`
`7
`
`Meanwhile, as previewed in its complaint, Apple has rushed to conduct aggressive,
`
`8
`
`overbroad discovery to find evidence for its as-yet unsupported belief that Rivos misappropriated
`
`9
`
`its trade secrets, including by filing an ex parte motion for a TRO and expedited discovery, including
`
`10
`
`both written discovery and depositions. For example, Apple requested that Rivos produce “[a]ll
`
`11
`
`Apple confidential documents and information” related to SOCs that any former Apple employee
`
`12
`
`hired by Rivos “retained, downloaded, or transferred,” and that Rivos “describe in detail” any such
`
`13
`
`“downloading, transfer or retention,” among other requests. See Dkt. 27-19 (Apple’s First Set of
`
`14
`
`15
`
`RFPs to Rivos); Dkt. 27-18 (Apple’s First Set of Interrogatories to Rivos). Apple also requested
`a 30(b)(6) deposition of Rivos on similar topics. See Dkt 27-22.
`
`16
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`17
`
`To avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
`
`18
`
`state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
`
`19
`
`cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
`
`20
`
`U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). “Although factual allegations are taken as true,
`
`21
`
`[courts] do not assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4 It is well-established that “[i]n determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court
`may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff’s moving papers[.]” Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d
`1023, 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). “The court need not, however, accept as true allegations that
`contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice[.]” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d
`1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). And judicially noticeable facts that contradict the allegations in a
`plaintiff’s complaint may be properly considered. See Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control
`Ass’n, Inc., Nos. C 08-4548 MHP, C 08-4719 MHP, 2010 WL 145098, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8,
`2010) (“A court deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion can take judicial notice o f matters of public record.
`. . [s]uch public records include admissions made by a party in the record of a related proceeding
`such as a preliminary injunction proceeding.”).
`
`-4-
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`factual allegations.” Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
`
`2
`
`omitted). If allegations of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly
`
`3
`
`cure deficiencies in the complaint, then dismissal with prejudice is appropriate even if the complaint
`
`4
`
`has not been amended yet. United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011).
`
`5
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`6
`
`Apple’s claim that Rivos has misappropriated trade secrets is unsupported by any factual
`
`7
`
`allegations of wrongdoing in Apple’s complaint. Instead, it is based entirely on Apple’s
`
`8
`
`unsupported “belief” that Apple’s former employees may use Apple trade secrets during the course
`
`9
`
`of their employment at Rivos. But, not only has Apple failed to adequately allege any misconduct
`
`10
`
`by the named individual defendants—let alone the other anonymous employees who Apple
`
`11
`
`references in its complaint—at its core, Apple’s complaint impermissibly pleads an “inevitable
`
`12
`
`disclosure” theory of trade secret misappropriation. Because the law is clear that Apple cannot file
`
`13
`
`a lawsuit and then conduct discovery before alleging a viable claim against Rivos, its trade secret
`
`14
`
`misappropriation claim fails as a matter of law and should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`A.
`
`Apple’s Complaint Does Not State Specific Facts Sufficient to Sustain A Claim
`
`Of Misappropriation Against Rivos
`
`Apple asserts a single claim for relief against Rivos: violation of the Defend Trade Secrets
`
`18
`
`Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq.). Under the DTSA, the owner of a trade secret may bring a civil action
`
`19
`
`for misappropriation of a trade secret. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1836(b). To state a claim for trade secret
`
`20
`
`misappropriation, “a plaintiff must allege (1) that it is the owner of a trade secret; (2) that the
`
`21
`
`defendant misappropriated the trade secret; and (3) that it was damaged by the defendant’s actions.”
`
`22
`
`Navigation Holdings, LLC v. Molavi, 445 F. Supp. 3d 69, 78 (N.D. Cal. 2020).
`
`23
`
`Here, Apple fails to adequately allege any of the three requisite elements of its claim against
`
`24
`
`Rivos. Instead, Apple’s allegations rely on sparse, conclusory statements that are insufficient to
`
`25
`
`show that Rivos acquired, disclosed, or used Apple’s trade secrets.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`1.
`
`Apple Fails To Demonstrate Ownership Of Any Trade Secret
`
`“To prove that Plaintiff is the owner of a trade secret, it ‘need not spell out the details of the
`
`28
`
`trade secret,’ but must ‘describe the subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`separate it from matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special persons who are skilled in
`
`2
`
`the trade, and to permit the defendant to ascertain at least the boundaries within which the secret
`
`3
`
`lies.’” CleanFish, LLC v. Sims, No. 19-CV-03663-HSG, 2020 WL 4732192, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
`
`4
`
`14, 2020) (citation omitted, emphasis added). “On a motion to dismiss, the burden is on the plaintiff
`
`5
`
`to identify protectable trade secrets and ‘[show] that they exist.’” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`6
`
`Here, Apple’s complaint fails to identify any alleged trade secret with the particularity
`
`7
`
`required to survive a motion to dismiss. Indeed, it was not until after the filing of its complaint that
`
`8
`
`Apple provided Rivos with its purported trade secret disclosure. See Dkt. 42-5. However, even that
`
`9
`
`disclosure is inadequate, describing only general categories of information (like “Chip
`
`10
`
`Specifications” or “SoC Roadmaps and Status Reports”), rather than the alleged trade secrets
`
`11
`
`themselves. See, e.g., Soc. Apps, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., No. 4:11-CV-04910 YGR, 2012 WL 2203063,
`
`12
`
`at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2012) (“A description of [a] category, or even of the subcategories of
`
`13
`
`information within a category, does not comply with the requirement to identify the actual matter
`
`14
`
`that is claimed to be a trade secret.”); Via Techs., Inc. v. Asus Computer Int’l, No. 14-CV-03586-
`
`15
`
`BLF, 2016 WL 1056139, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016) (“[T]he disclosure claims that all of VIA’s
`
`16
`
`analog and digital schematics are trade secrets in their entirety […] the disclosure gives
`
`17
`
`Defendants—and the court—practically no guidance on precisely what VIA claims as its trade
`
`18
`
`secrets.”).
`
`19
`
`Having failed to identify any protectable trade secret, Apple has not, and cannot show that
`
`20
`
`it is an owner of any such trade secret, and its claim against Rivos must be dismissed. Lamont v.
`
`21
`
`Conner, No. 5:18-CV-04327-EJD, 2019 WL 1369928, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) (granting
`
`22
`
`motion to dismiss where “Plaintiff’s description of his trade secrets as stated in the complaint are
`
`23
`
`not plead with sufficient particularity”); AlterG, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC, 388 F. Supp. 3d 1133,
`
`24
`
`1145 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (dismissing claim where plaintiff “fail[ed] to identify its allegedly
`
`25
`
`misappropriated trade secrets with sufficient particularity to state a claim under the DTSA”);
`
`26
`
`Vendavo, Inc. v. Price f(x) AG, No. 17-CV-06930-RS, 2018 WL 1456697, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23,
`
`27
`
`2018) (same); Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE, No. 18-CV-03670-WHO, 2018 WL 6528009, at *4 (N.D.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`Cal. Dec. 12, 2018) (same); Space Data Corp. v. X, No. 16-CV-03260-BLF, 2017 WL 5013363, at
`
`2
`
`*2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) (same).5
`
`3
`
`4
`
`2.
`
`Apple Fails To Plausibly Allege Direct Misappropriation By Rivos
`
`Nor has Apple adequately alleged the second element of a misappropriation claim:
`
`5
`
`misappropriation by Rivos.
`
`6
`
`The DTSA defines “misappropriation” as the “[a]cquisition of a trade secret of another by a
`
`7
`
`person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means,” or
`
`8
`
`the unauthorized “disclosure or use of a trade secret” acquired by improper means. 18 U.S.C. §
`
`9
`
`1839; see also Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Tarantino, 498 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1172 (N.D. Cal.
`
`10
`
`2020).
`
`11
`
`Here, Apple’s complaint asserts a generalized legal conclusion that “Defendants”—
`
`12
`
`including Rivos—“improperly acquired and retained” Apple information constituting trade secrets.
`
`13
`
`Compl. ¶ 74; see also Compl. ¶ 37. However, all of the factual support for this legal conclusion
`
`14
`
`describe actions allegedly taken by Wen and Kaithamana, not Rivos. For example, Apple’s
`
`15
`
`complaint alleges that “Defendants misappropriated trade secrets at least by acquiring trade secrets
`
`16
`
`by improper means” (Compl. ¶ 77), but then describes the actions of only Wen and Kaithamana,
`
`17
`
`including signing “IPAs and exit checklists” (id.) and allegedly retaining trade secret information
`
`18
`
`contained in Apple documents. Id. ¶ 78 (“The trade secret information that [Wen and Kaithamana]
`
`19
`
`and other former employees now at Rivos have retained . . . includes [ ] chip specifications and
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`5 While Apple attempts to gain early discovery to bolster its claims, such discovery cannot save
`Apple’s insufficiently plead complaint. See Jobscience, Inc. v. CVPartners, Inc., No. C 13-04519
`WHA, 2014 WL 852477, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014) (“A true trade secret plaintiff ought to be
`able to identify, up front, and with specificity the particulars of the trade secrets without any
`discovery.”); see also Comp. Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Grp., Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 986 (S.D. Cal.
`May 25, 1999) (enumerating four reasons a plaintiff must disclose its trade secrets prior to
`discovery: discouraging the filing of meritless complaints, preventing “fishing expeditions,” helping
`the court to determine the appropriate scope of discovery, and enabling defendants to form
`“complete and well-reasoned defenses[.]”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Ca se No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD
`RIVOS INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02637-EJD Document 65 Filed 06/30/22 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`designs for Apple’s SOCs”). Apple’s allegations regarding Wen and Kaithamana are legally infirm
`
`2
`
`themselves6 and, in any event, cannot substitute for specific allegations of misconduct by Rivos.
`
`3
`
`Instead, to survive a motion to dismiss, a DTSA complaint must include factual allegations
`
`4
`
`as to Rivos’ involvement in the alleged misappropriation. Indeed, courts in this District have
`
`5
`
`dismissed DTSA claims where the complaint fails to differentiate between the conduct of a
`
`6
`
`corporate defendant and its employees. See Navigation Holdings, LLC, 445 F. Supp. 3d at 79
`
`7
`
`(dismissing a DTSA complaint against corporate defendants where the complaint improperly based
`
`8
`
`its “trade secret misappropriation claims on [an employee’s] conduct, without differentiating what
`
`9
`
`each specific [corporate] Defendant is alleged to have done.”); Farhang v. Indian Inst. of Tech.,
`
`10
`
`Kharagpur, No. C-08-02658 RMW, 2010 WL 2228936, at *15 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2010)
`
`11
`
`(nonspecific allegation “that defendants disclosed plaintiffs’ trade secrets without their express or
`
`12
`
`implied consent” insufficient to avoid dismissal).
`
`13
`
`For example, in Tarantino, the complaint included detailed allegations of misappropriation
`
`14
`
`by certain employees named as individual defendants, but included “no specific facts” to support a
`
`15
`
`DTSA claim against their new employer. 498 F. Supp. 3d at 1173. The Court noted that the
`
`16
`
`individual defendants “could well have taken the trade secre