Gabriel Technologies Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.
857 F. Supp. 2d 997
S.D. Cal.2012Background
- This case involves Gabriel Technologies and Trace Technologies claiming misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of license agreements by SnapTrack/Qualcomm tied to a 1999 license and a 2006 amendment.
- Plaintiffs allege joint ownership of Program Technology and that Defendants misused Locate’s confidential information and technology in violation of California law.
- Trace and Gabriel acquired licenses and rights through prior relationships beginning in 1998, with Qualcomm acquiring SnapTrack in 2000 and continuing the alleged misappropriation through the 2006 amendment.
- Plaintiffs filed the Fourth Amended Complaint in January 2010 after prior dismissals of other claims; Defendants moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds for misappropriation and breach of contract in September 2011.
- The court granted Defendants’ partial motion in part and denied in part, ruling misappropriation claim time-barred and certain contract grounds time-barred, while leaving some contract grounds intact.
- The court also granted judicial notice and allowed Plaintiffs to supplement the record; final order issued with specific findings on discovery, tolling, and sham-affidavit issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misappropriation claim is timely under CUTSA | Plaintiffs argue discovery tolled the statute until after more recent evidence emerged. | Defendants contend January 2003 suspicion triggered discovery, rendering the claim time-barred before 2005. | Misappropriation claim barred; discovery rule triggered by January 2003 suspicion. |
| Whether breach of contract claim accrues under discovery rule | Gabriel asserts delayed discovery tolls the claim for certain grounds. | Defendants argue breach accrues on breach, with tolling limited by discovery rule for specific grounds. | Partial grant: discovery rule applies to some grounds; grounds on trade secrets/time-barred except for remaining IP grounds. |
| Whether identification/ownership of Program Technology was properly required and performed | Locate argues Program Technology exists and was identified in Project Plan as required. | Program Technology was not identified; obligations were not fulfilled. | Plaintiffs’ failure to identify Program Technology fatal to grounds two, four, and five; those breach theories dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) (reasonable suspicion triggers discovery rule for misappropriation)
- Leaf v. City of San Mateo, 104 Cal.App.3d 398 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (divisible/continuing claims and discovery principles)
- Kane v. Sklar, 122 Cal.App.2d 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954) (mutuality of obligations; performance requirement for breach claims)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) (suspicion of wrongdoing triggers statute of limitations)
- Nebraska v. Wyoming, 507 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1993) (summary judgment standards when no genuine issues of material fact)