Citcon USA, LLC v. RiverPay, Inc.
5:18-cv-02585
N.D. Cal.May 31, 2019Background
- Citcon sued RiverPay and former employees (Hua, Shi) for misappropriation of trade secrets including source code; claims brought under DTSA and CUTSA among others.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment arguing Citcon does not own the allegedly stolen source code because contract programmer Dino Lab authored it.
- Defendants submitted Hua’s declaration and a Dino Lab–Citcon contractor agreement; Citcon submitted Huang’s declaration, emails, NDAs, contractor agreements, invoices, code samples, and git logs claiming multiple authorship.
- Citcon’s evidence says Dino Lab wrote primarily some frontend (Android) blocks, All Union contractors wrote much backend, and Citcon employees (including Hua and Shi at times) wrote other portions.
- Defendants conceded Dino Lab wrote much of the code but argued the misappropriated code was exclusively Dino Lab’s; the parties disputed who authored the specific code at issue.
- The court found genuine disputes over which portions of the challenged source code were written by Dino Lab versus others, and therefore denied partial summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership of allegedly misappropriated source code | Citcon: code was authored by multiple parties (Dino Lab, All Union, and Citcon employees); Citcon owns the trade secrets at issue | Defendants: Dino Lab authored the relevant code, so Dino Lab (not Citcon) owns it; Citcon cannot prove ownership | Denied: genuine dispute exists as to who wrote the allegedly misappropriated code, so summary judgment improper |
| Relevance of copyright/contract/investment evidence | Citcon: ownership and authorship issues are factual questions; contractual/copyright arguments irrelevant if non‑Dino Lab code was taken | Defendants: contractual and copyright arrangements show Dino Lab ownership, so legal issues resolve in their favor | Court: declined to decide those legal issues because factual dispute on authorship is unresolved |
| Request to declare Dino Lab owns any code it wrote | Citcon: not addressed as a basis for immediate ruling | Defendants: asked court to at least rule any code written by Dino Lab belongs to Dino Lab to narrow trial issues | Denied: factual ambiguity whether any code was written exclusively by Dino Lab; court declined to make such a ruling |
| Evidentiary objections to Citcon declarations and code samples | Citcon: submitted declarations and code samples to show overlap and authorship issues | Defendants: objected to much of Citcon’s evidence as improper | Court: overruled objections as moot or admissible where relied upon; resolved ambiguities in Citcon’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (U.S. 2014) (summary judgment requires drawing inferences in favor of nonmoving party)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (moving party’s summary judgment burden and nonmoving party’s response requirements)
- JustMed, Inc. v. Byce, 600 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff must prove ownership to prevail on trade secret misappropriation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (definition of material and genuine factual disputes for summary judgment)