Silicon Valley has always been a hot bed of trade secrets suits. But there’s a new twist in an ongoing dispute between Applied Materials, Inc., the huge Santa Clara-based maker of semiconductor equipment, and a company started by its former employees: the former employees’ business is in China. So the dispute raises the question of which country will have jurisdiction. “Do the California courts want to be an international court of trade secret?” asks David Steuer, a Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati partner who represents another Chinese semiconductor company in a similar case.
Applied Materials claims that Gerald Yin, its former chief technology officer, and others took confidential information about tools used to design microchips, formed Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc. (AMEC) in Shanghai, and then disclosed the technology in patent applications in China, Japan and the U.S. Morrison & Foester lawyers for the Chinese company are arguing that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. “[Applied] is not suing any alleged thieves, it is only suing their subsequent employer, which, in this case happens to be a Chinese company,” says Harold McElhinny, the lead MoFo lawyer. “But why would a Chineseor Canadian or British or Braziliancompany be subject to California law simply because it hired someone who used to work in California?” Applied Materials’s lawyers at Goodwin Procter and Fish & Richardson argue in court filings that the proper jurisdiction is California because many of the events giving rise to the claim happened there. The motion was scheduled to be heard in February.
