Xpertuniverse Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. C.A. No. 09-157-RGA, March 7, 2013
Andrews, J. Defendant’s motions for partial summary judgment are granted in part and denied in part.
On February 27, 2013, the court held oral argument on defendant’s motions for partial summary judgment. The motions were granted in part and denied in part. The motions are granted as to plaintiff’s indirect infringement claims in Counts I and II (patent infringement), as plaintiff has no admissible evidence. Plaintiff has shown a genuine issue of material fact as to Counts III and IV (rescission and fraud-based claims) only with regard to one of defendant’s products. Count V is dismissed because plaintiff did not adequately all but two of its trade secrets and did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to misappropriation. Count VI (breach of confidence) is mutually exclusive with a breach of contract claim and superseded by plaintiff’s California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) claim (Count V, trade secret missapropriation). As to Counts VII and VIII (Lanham Act), plaintiff did not create a genuine issue of material fact to show “expert on demand” is a protectable phrase. In Counts IX, X, and XI (breach of contract claims), plaintiff has shown a genuine issue of material fact with regard to two documents. Partial summary judgment is granted as to Count XII (rescission and fraud-based claims) because plaintiff did not show fraudulent inducement or unconscionability. Counts XIII (common law unfair competition), XIV (unfair competition under the California Civil Code), XV, and XVI (conversion) are superseded by plaintiff’s CUTSA claim. Partial summary judgment is also appropriate as to Count XVI because intangible intellectual property cannot be subject to conversion.