Bartko Firm Pilots Chip Designer to $223M Trade Secret Verdict
ASML accused rival Xtal of hiring executives and engineers and inducing them to bring computational lithography technology with them.
November 29, 2018 at 08:32 PM
2 minute read
Semiconductor design company ASML US Inc. has scored a $223 million trade secret verdict against rival Xtal Inc. in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
ASML had accused Xtal of inducing ASML employees to download and convey ASML's computational lithography technology before taking employment with Xtal. Jurors found that Xtal induced six employees to breach their contracts and aided and abetted their breach of the duty of loyalty. The jury also tacked on $1.2 million related to breach of California's computer fraud statute and found that Xtal acted with malice, fraud and oppression, opening the door for possible punitive damages and attorney fees.
It's a big win for a Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller team led by partner Patrick Ryan. “I am gratified by the jury's powerful verdict in favor of ASML, which will help secure and protect tremendous hard work and innovation of ASML” and its employees, Ryan said in a written statement.
Bartko's trial team also included partners Stephen Steinberg and Brian Smith and associates Sean McTigue and Andrew Winetroub.
Computational lithography uses computer models to predict and simulate how microscopic chip patterns will print on physical wafers. ASML is a Dutch company that operates a division in San Jose following its acquisition of Brion Technologies.
According to ASML's complaint, San Jose-based Xtal was founded in 2014 and intentionally populated its roster with former executives and lithography engineers from ASML's Brion division. Xtal allegedly directed some of them to perform work for Xtal while still employed at ASM and to help Xtal woo away customers such as Samsung. ASML also accused the employees of taking ASML source code, programming language scripts and business information with them to Xtal.
Xtal was represented by Putterman Landry + Yu. “We disagree with the verdict and are currently planning our response,” partner Donald Putterman said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMeta Seeks Declaratory Judgment in VR Eyewear Tech Patent Infringement Case
Plaintiffs Seek to Avoid Jurisdiction Fight in IVF Case, Challenge CooperSurgical in Connecticut
4 minute readPorsche's Venture Capital Arm Adds General Counsel From Clifford Chance
Trending Stories
- 1Free Speech Causes a Neighborly Feud
- 2Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 3Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 4When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250