AtPac, Inc. v. Aptitude Solutions, Inc.
787 F. Supp. 2d 1108
E.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiff AtPac, Inc. sues Aptitude Solutions, Inc., County of Nevada, and Gregory Diaz for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets under CUTSA, and copyright infringement.
- Aptitude moves for partial summary judgment arguing the CUTSA misappropriation claim is preempted by copyright.
- Plaintiff owns the CRiis clerk-recorder imaging software with registered copyrights, and Nevada County had licensed CRiis since 1999.
- Defendants allegedly mishandled Nevada County’s data conversion from CRiis to Aptitude’s software.
- Trade secret materials include CRiis source code and confidential server access, data schema, data files, methods, and functionalities.
- Plaintiff maintains confidentiality through employee and licensee obligations, access restrictions, and security measures; the court discusses the preemption analysis and scope of protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption of CUTSA by copyright for misappropriation claim | AtPac argues the trade secrets include non-copyrightable elements; misappropriation has an extra element of secrecy. | Aptitude contends the claim is equivalent to copyright rights and thus preempted. | Not preempted; the misappropriation claim contains an extra element of secrecy. |
| Whether CRiis source code is within copyright subject matter while other trade secrets are not | Source code is protected; other trade secret components fall outside copyright. | Preemption applies to all asserted misappropriation elements if rights align with copyright. | Copyright covers literal and non-literal software components; non-copyrightable trade secret elements are not preempted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1991) (sham affidavit rule; consistency with deposition required to negate facts)
- Del Madera Props. v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc., 820 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1987) (preemption requires right protection difference for non-duplication)
- Firoozye v. Earthlink Network, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (copyright does not preempt when extra element beyond copying exists)
- Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) (copyright protects expression, not ideas, processes, or methods of operation)
- Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005) (copyright rights vs. trade secret rights; preemption analysis for software)