AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)

7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)

1/26

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

DISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS

_________________________________________ )

ADVANCEDMICRODEVICES,INC. )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVILACTION

) No.13-40007-TSH

ROBERTFELDSTEIN,MANOO DESAI, )

NICOLASKOCIUK,RICHARDHAGEN, )

DEEPAKSRIVATSTHIRUMALAI, )

Defendants. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUMANDORDERON

APPLICATION FORPRELIMINARYINJUNCTION

May 15, 2013

HILLMAN,J.

Thisisanactionformisappropriationoftradesecrets,unfaircompetition,breachof

contract,violationoftheComputerFraudandAbuseAct (CFAA),andconspiracy.1 Plaintiff

soughtandreceivedaTemporaryRestrainingOrder (TRO)fromthisCourtagainstall

defendants. TheTRO requires Defendantstopreserveanyandalltradesecret,confidential

1 Plaintiffbringsatotalofsevenclaims. CountI,raisedagainstFeldstein,Desai,KociukandThirumalai,

isformisappropriationofTradeSecretsunderMassachusettscommonlaw. CountII,raisedagainstFeldstein,Desai,KociukandThirumalai,isformisappropriationoftradesecretsunderMass. Gen. Lawch.93,42,and

42A. CountIII,raisedagainstFeldstein,Desai,Kociuk,andThirumalai,isforunfaircompetitionunderMass.Gen.

Lawch.93A11. CountIV,raisedagainstFeldstein,Desai,KociukandThirumalai,isforviolationofthe

ComputerFraudandAbuseAct,18U.S.C.1030. CountV,raisedagainstFeldstein,Desai,Kociukand

Thirumalai,isforbreachoftheemployeesdutyofloyaltyunderMassachusettscommonlaw. CountVI,raised

againstallDefendants,isforbreachofcontract,through(1)failingtoreturnconfidentialAMDinformationatthe

endoftheiremploymentand(2)solicitationofAMDemployees. CountVII,raisedagainstDesaiandKociuk,isfor

conspiracy.

Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page1of26


2/26

2

and/orproprietary AMDinformation2thatremainsintheirpossession,whilealsobarring

DefendantsfromanysolicitationofAMDemployees. PlaintiffnowseekstoreplacetheseTROs

withpreliminaryinjunctions.

I. Facts

Thefollowingfactsaretakenfromthepleadings, stipulations andtestimonialevidence

containedintherecord; exceptwhereotherwiseindicated theyareundisputed. Specific

informationabout the filestakenbyDefendants,aswellasforensicevidenceregardinghowand

whenthosefileswerecreatedandaccessed, is derived fromthetestimonyofMichaelPerry and

theDeclarationofGaryTitus.

3

A.TheParties

AdvancedMicroDevices,Inc.(PlaintifforAMD)isaDelaware corporation,withits

principleplaceofbusinessinAustin,Texas,thatdesigns andsupplies microprocessorsand

relatedcomputercomponentsforavarietyofpurposes frommotherboardchipsetstodiscrete

CPUsandGPUstosystem-on-a-chipintegratedpackages. AMDmaintainsafacilityin

Boxborough,Massachusettswhichperformsdesignwork formultipleAMDprojects.

Althoughtherearecurrentlyfive nameddefendants,this orderaddressesonlyPlaintiffs

application forapreliminaryinjunctionasagainsttheinitialfour.4DefendantRobertFeldstein

2 Forthesakeofsimplicity,thisorderwillusethetermconfidentialAMDinformationtoencompassany

andallconfidential,proprietaryand/ortradesecretinformationatissueinthiscase. Detailedclassificationofthe

allegedlymisappropriateddatacanbeaddressedduringthediscoveryphase.

3

Mr.PerryisaComputerForensicAnalystatElysiumDigital,aneutral,thirdpartydesignatedbythedisputantstoconductforensicexaminationsofthedatastoragedevicesatissue. GaryTitusisAssistantDirectorof

DigitalForensicsatStrozFreidberg,athirdpartyretainedbyAMDtoexaminethosedatastoragedevicesatissue

thatwereinAMDspossessionwhenthissuitbegan. Allpartieshavestipulatedtohisdeclaration.

4 Thefifthdefendant,DeepaksrivatThirumalai,wasaddedtothecaseinAMDsSecondAmended

Complaint(DocketNo.91). AMDhasalsomovedforapreliminaryinjunctionagainstThirumalai,andamotion

hearingiscurrentlypending. AMDhasindicatedthatitsinternalinvestigationisongoingandhasindicatedthatit

maymovetoaddadditionaldefendantsasituncoversmoreinformation.



3/26

3

(Feldstein),DefendantManooDesai(Desai), DefendantNicolasKociuk(Kociuk) and

DefendantRichardHagen(Hagen)(collectivelyDefendants)were all employedbyAMDat

itsBoxboroughfacility. DuringtheiremploymentDefendants hadauthorizedaccessto

confidentialAMDinformation relatingtotechnicalspecifications and/orbusinessstrategy.

BetweenJuly2012andJanuary2013DefendantsallleftAMDandaccepted newpositionsat

NvidiaCorporation,amajorcompetitorofAMDinsomemarketsegments.

B.AMDsEmploymentContractsandConfidentialInformation

AMDmakesuseof industrystandardpracticestoprotecttheir confidentialinformation,

includingapasswordprotectedinternalnetwork, encryptedcomputerharddrives,restricted

physicalaccesstoAMDfacilities withsecuritymonitoring,andcontractualagreementswith

employeesandpartners. Eachdefendant signedaBusinessProtectionAgreement(BPA) with

AMDwhichrestrictedthem fromretainingordisclosinganyconfidentialAMDinformationafter

their employmentatAMDwasterminated. TheBPAs alsoincludednon-solicitationclauses.5

C. TheAllegedM isappropri ation

PlaintiffallegesthatFeldstein, DesaiandKociuk havemisappropriatedconfidential

AMDinformation. DesaiandKociuk arealsoallegedtohaveconspiredtomisappropriatethe

sameconfidentialAMD information. Ineachcaseofallegedmisappropriation therelevant data

were copiedfromAMD-ownedstoragedevicesontoprivately-owned storagedevices(avariety

ofUSBthumbdrives andlargerformatexternalharddiskdrives)whiletheparticulardefendant

stillworkedforAMD, andthen retainedbythatdefendantafterhisorheremploymentatAMD

terminated. Feldstein,DesaiandKociukalladmittoretainingsomedataaftertheendoftheir

5Thesenon-solicitationclausesarealltemporallylimited,eithertoone(Feldstein)ortwoyears(Hagen,

Desai, Kociuk) aftertheterminationofemploymentwithAMD.



4/26

4

employmentatAMD,but disputeAMDsallegationsthattheydidsoinanattempttoconvert

thatdatatotheirownuse,orthatofNvidia, oranythird-party.

1.DefendantFeldstein

OfDefendants,Feldsteinwasboththemostsenioremployee andthefirsttoleaveAMD

forNvidia. DuringthelastseveralyearsofhisemploymentatAMD,Feldsteinwasengaged

largelyinstrategiclicensingnegotiationswithsomeofAMDslargestcustomers. Feldsteins

lastdayatAMDwasJuly13,2012;hisfirstdayatNvidiawasJuly16,2012. Immediatelyprior

toleavingAMD,Feldsteintookaonemonthsabbatical. ForensicexaminationofUSBthumb

drives belongingtoFeldstein indicatesthatonJuly3,whileFeldsteinwasonsabbatical,some

8,148fileswerecopiedfrom AMDsintranet viaFeldsteinsAMD-issuedlaptop(theJuly3

files). Themetadataassociatedwiththesefilessuggeststhatthiscopyingwasenmasse,with

littleornomanualselectionofparticularfiles. OnJuly13,Feldsteins lastdayasan AMD

employee,theuseraccountassignedtoFeldstein copiedtwelve additionaldocuments (theJuly

13files) ontoapair of USBflashdrive. TheseJuly 13filesincludeaGmailcontactsfile,a

MicrosoftOutlookinboxfileandseveralbusiness-strategy-relateddocuments detailing the

confidentialtermsoflicensingagreementsbetweenAMDandsomeofitspartners.6AMD

admitsthatsome orall ofthesedocuments wereindraftform,butassertsthattheinformation

wouldgiveAMDscompetitorsanadvantage. Themetadataassociatedwiththesefilessuggests

thattheywereselectivelycopied.

Feldsteintestifiedthathehadnospecificrecollectionofwhy hedownloaded anyof these

files,otherthantheGmailandOutlookfiles,whichcontainpersonalinformationthathewished

toretain. He aversthathehadnointention totransferanyofthesefiles toNvidiaoranyother

6Approximatelytwentyfiveofthemorethan8,000documentstakenbyFeldsteinonJuly3andJuly13are

particularlysensitive,andtheyhavebeenenteredintoevidenceunderseal.



5/26

5

party. Forensicanalysisrevealsthatfortytwo fileswereaccessedonorafterJuly13,2012,

FeldsteinslastdayatAMD.7 Althoughaccesseddoesnotnecessarilymeanthefileswere

openedbyahuman, forensicexaminationofthefiles suggeststhatsomewere openedon various

datesinlate July2012,includingJuly16,19,20and23. Feldsteinconcedesthatheconnected

theflashdrives tohisNvidia-issuedlaptopinlateJuly2012andopenedatleastsomeoftheJuly

13files,includingthe TechnologyLicensingOverviewPowerPoint presentation.8Feldstein

testifiedthat,uponopeningthisPowerPoint file, heimmediatelyrecognizedtheinformation

containedtherein asconfidentialAMD information. Hedescribedhispossessionofthese

documentsasproblematic. Despitethisrealization,whichoccurred nolaterthan July 23,

2012,FeldsteinsaidnothingtoAMDrepresentativeswithwhomhespokeonJuly27, 2012 as

partofan AMD post-employment legaldebriefing.NordoesFeldstein appeartohavetakenany

otherstepstoreturnthedocumentstoAMD. Conversely,thereisalsonoevidencethatFeldstein

turnedthedocumentsovertoNvidiaoranyotherparty.

2.DefendantDesai

DesaiwasaSeniorManagerof ASIC/LayoutDesignatAMDuntilsheacceptedanoffer

ofemploymentfromNvidia onoraroundNovember20,2012. PriortoherdeparturefromAMD

onDecember7,2012,sheled ateamofengineersworkingonintegration fordiscretegraphics

processors. ForensicanalysisofaWesternDigitaltwoterabyteexternalharddriverevealedthat

7,899 documentsweretransferredfromDesaisAMD-issuedlaptop toa folderlocatedonthe

externalharddrive. Onedirectory inthisapparentbackupwascalled\Manoo\AMDLaptop

7SomeofthesefilesaccessedonorafterJuly13containnodata,andothersareWindowssystemfiles. A

smallnumberareamongthoseconfidentialdocumentsthathavebeenadmittedintoevidenceundersealasPl.sEx.

86.

8Feldsteinconcededthathisearlierdepositiontestimonywherehestatedthathehadonlyopenedonefile

afterJuly13wasincorrect. FeldsteinnowadmitsthatheopenedtheTechnologyLicensingOverviewPowerPoint

onJuly19or20,andthenopenedseveraladditionalconfidentialAMDdocumentsonJuly23.



6/26

6

Backup12-6-2012\Perforce. Perforceis also thenameofaninternalAMDserverthatcontains

confidentialinformation relatingtotechnicalanddesignspecifications.

Desaitestifiedthatherhusbanddownloadedallofthisdatalateontheeveningof

December6,2012atherrequest. Sheadmitsthatsheaskedhimtocopyherpersonalfiles,

includingfamilyphotos,personalemailsandtaxinformation,fromherAMD-issuedlaptop,but

furtheraversthatsheinstructedhimnottotakeanyconfidentialAMDinformation. Thereis

evidencethatportionsofthisdata,includingnotestakenbyDesaiatAMDemployeemeetings,

wereaccessedon Desais Nvidia-issuedlaptop. Desai admitstolookingatthisinformation,

butaversthatshewassearchingforpersonalinformation that shebelievedwasalsocontained in

the Microsoft OneNotefile. Desaifurtheradmits that, afterrealizingthatthefilecontained

confidentialAMDinformation, shetriedtodeleteit butwasunabletodoso. Desaialso

downloaded,installedandopenedanapplicationnamedSDelete,autilityforsecurelyerasing

computerfiles. Sheassertsthatshedidsoinordertosecurelyeraseallofherpersonal

informationfromherAMD-issuedequipment. Forensicexaminationof herAMD-issuedlaptop

revealsnoevidencethatanyfileswereerased using SDelete. Thereisalsonoevidencethat

Desai madeanyefforttoreturnthesefilestoAMD,noranyevidencethatshegavethesefilesto

Nvidiaoranyotherpartypriortothislitigation.

OnDecember6,2012,DesaispenultimatedayofemploymentatAMD,sheasked

KociuktoretrievetwotemplatefilesfromAMDs Perforceserver. Thesetemplateswere

ExcelspreadsheetsthatsetoutschedulingparametersforIPteammanagers. Desaiwasmoving

toIPteammanagementinhernewpositionatNvidiaandhadconsultedwithIPteammanagers

atAMDtolearnabouttheirschedulingprocesses. Desaitestifiedboththatthesetemplates

werenotconfidentialAMDinformationandthateveniftheywere,shehadnointentionof



7/26

7

takingthemwithhertoNvidia;shewasmerelyengaginginproactiveprofessionaldevelopment.

Theevidentiaryrecordtodatedoesnotindicatewhetherthesetemplatefileswereamongthose

copiedontoDesaisexternalharddriveontheeveningofDecember6,2012.

AMDallegesthatKociukandDesaiconspiredtousethisexternalharddrivetotake

confidentialAMDinformation. Emailevidence indicatesthatKociukprovidedadviceand

assistancetoDesaiwithregardtorecoveringdataandsecurelydeletingitfromAMD-issued

equipment. KociukofferedtolendDesaianexternalharddriveforthispurpose,andfurther

suggestedthatDesaiuseSDelete tocleanherAMD-issuedlaptop. He pointedhertoawebsite

wheretheSDelete couldbedownloaded. BothDesaiandKociuktestifiedthattheywere

discussingonlyhowtorecoveranddeleteDesaispersonalinformationfromherAMD-issued

computer.

3.DefendantKociuk

KociukworkedatAMDaspartofDesaisintegrationteamandreporteddirectlytoher.

ForensicanalysisofKociuksAMD-issuedcomputersindicatethathis useraccountconducted

severalinternetsearchesrelating tothetopicofcopyingortransferringverylargefilesystems

forsubsequentuse. Kociukadmitstoperformingthesesearches,butassertsthat hedidsoonly

inordertohelpDesaisecurelyeraseherpersonaldatafromAMDequipmentwhensheleft

AMD. AMDseestheseactionsaspartoftheallegedconspiracybetweenDesaiandKociuk

mentionedabove.

Additionally,Kociukadmitstousing autilityapplication,Robocopy,tocreateduplicate

imagesoftheentirefilestructureofhistwoAMD-issuedcomputers. Intotal,morethanone

millionfileswerecopiedontoapairofexternalharddrives. Kociukindicatedthathebelieved

hisAMD-issuedcomputerscontainedpersonalphotos,personalemailsandsomepersonal



8/26

8

financialinformation,andexplainsthiscopyingasanattempttopreservethatdata. Apparently

heimagedtheentiretyofbothhisAMD-issuedcomputers withtheintentofsortingthrough

thesefilesatalaterdatetoseparateoutanypersonaldatahewishedtoretain. Kociuks

employmentatAMDendedonJanuary11,2013. Ontheafternoonofthatdayhewasaskedto

signastatementconfirmingthathehadnoconfidentialAMDinformationinhispossession. He

didsodespiteretaining thetwoexternalharddrivescontainingcompleteimagesofhisAMD-

issuedcomputers. LikeFeldsteinandDesai,Kociukcategoricallydeniesdisseminating,or

intendingtodisseminate,anyconfidentialAMDinformationtoNvidiaoranyotherAMD

competitor.

Thereisnoevidencethat, priortothissuit,Kociukturnedanyofthisinformationoverto

anythird partyafterleavingAMD. ThereisalsonoevidencethatKociukattemptedtoturnthis

dataovertoAMDatthetimeofhisdeparturefromAMDorafterwards. However,AMDfiled

itscomplaintonthefirstbusinessdayafterKociukleftthecompany,sohisopportunitiesto

returnanysuchinformationwereverylimited. Thereisalsoevidence thatatsomepointpriorto

Kociuksdeparture,butafterthedeparturesofFeldstein,HagenandDesai,AMDsurreptitiously

inspectedthecontentsofKociukspersonalharddriveswhiletheywereathisworkstationinside

AMDsBoxboroughfacility.

D. TheAllegedSolicitation

AMD furtherallegesthatFeldstein,DesaiandHagen havealsobreachedtheircontracts

withAMDby soliciting then-currentAMDemployeestoleaveforNvidia.

1.DefendantFeldstein

FeldsteinsignedaBPA withAMDinJuly2006inwhichhepromisedthat

during [Feldsteins] employment with [AMD] and for aperiod of one year

following the termination of [Feldsteins] employment, whether voluntary or



9/26

9

involuntary,[Feldsteinwould]nothireorattempttohireanemployeeof[AMD],

or directly or indirectly solicit, induce or encourage an employee of [AMD] to

leavehisor her employ towork for another employer,without first getting the

writtenconsentofanOfficerof[AMD].

TheallegationsofsolicitationagainstFeldsteinstemfromameetinghehadwithDesaion

November 12, 2012inCalifornia. AfterleavingAMD,FeldsteinbeganworkingatNvidiaasa

VicePresidentofTechnologyLicensing inoneofNvidiasCaliforniafacilities. Desai traveled

toCaliforniaforapreliminaryinterview onNovember122012.9Desaididnotinterviewwith

Feldstein,however, thetwodidmeetforlunch inan Nvidiacampuscafeteria onthesamedayas

herinterview. Thereisno clear indication intherecord ofhoworwhenFeldsteinandDesai

arrangedthismeeting. BothFeldsteinandDesaitestifiedthatthe lunchwaspersonalinnature

andhadnorelationwithDesaisthenongoingapplicationforemploymentatNvidia.

Desaimentionedthismeetinginpassinginemailstoboth herhusband and anotherAMD

employee. Desaitoldherhusband:Just finishedtalkingto[Feldstein]. Wentreallywell. Lets

hopeitcontinues. Onthesameday,shetoldanAMDcolleagueJusttalkedto[Feldstein]. He

isreallyhappywiththeswitch.

2.DefendantHagen

HagensignedaBPA withATI Technologies,Inc.10inNovember1999,inwhichhe

promisedthatduringand fortwoyearsaftertheterminationof[Hagens]employmentwith

[AMD],[Hagenwould] notsolicitanyofitsemployees,orassistotherstosolicitsuch

employees,toleavehisor heremploymentwith[AMD]. LikeFeldstein,Hagenisallegedto

9 DesaihadcontactedJoshuaHasten,anNvidiarecruiter,onOctober192012,toinquireaboutjob

opportunitiesatNvidia;herinquiriesledtoaninterviewandultimatelyanofferofemploymentatNvidia.

10ATIwasacorporationthatprincipallydesigneddiscretegraphicsprocessors. ItwaspurchasedbyAMD

in2006andAMDhasbeenassignedalloftheATIemploymentcontractsandBPAsatissueinthiscase.



10/26

10

havesolicitedDesaitoleaveAMDforNvidia. MostoftheevidenceagainstHagencomesfrom

emailstatementsmadebyDesaiaboutconversationswithHagen.

HagenmetwithDesaifor twoseparate lunches whileshewasintheprocessofapplying

foremploymentwithNvidia. OnOctober24,2012DesaiemailedHagen,congratulatinghimon

hisnewpositionwithNvidiaandaskingfordetailsabouthisnewofficelocation. Hagen

indicatedthathewasbasedinBedfordatthattime,butthatNvidiahadplanstoopenanew

officecomplexclosertoBoxboroughinthenearfuture. Desailaterrelayedthisinformationto

Kociuk,whonotedthatAMDisgoingtohavetoworkprettyhardtoretainitstoptalentinthe

next2years. Desairesponded, [Hagen]willpushtohaveanofficeclosertograbtalent.

InaninstantmessageexchangebetweenDesaiandKociukonNovember6,2012,one

daybeforeDesaimetwithHagen,KociuktoldDesai goodluckwithyourlunch11Hagen

andDesaiassertthattheirconversationduringthismeetingwaspersonalinnatureandthat

HagenhadnoinvolvementwithNvidias decisiontohireDesai. Shortlyafterthislunch,Desai

alsosentHagenanemailwithherresumeattached. BothHagenandDesaitestifiedthatDesai

sentherresumetoHagenforgeneraleditingandcareeradvice,ratherthanaspartofher

applicationforemploymentatAMD. Hagenaversthatheneithereditedthisresume,norsentan

updatedversionbacktoDesai.

DesaihadasecondlunchwithHagen, aswellasanotherformerAMDemployeewho

also nowworksatNvidia, atalaterdateinNovember. Desaitestifiedthatthislunchwasalso

personalinnatureandhadnothingtodowithherongoingapplicationforemploymentatNvidia.

Thereisverylittleevidenceintherecordrelatingtothissecondlunch.

11 KociukconcedesthathewasreferringtoDesaislunchwithHagen.



11/26

11

DesaidisclosedtoKociukthatshespokeviatelephonewithHagenonNovember12,

2012,afterherinterview withNvidiainCalifornia. ShereportedthatEverythingseemedurgent

and[Hagen]askedhowsoonIcouldgivenotice. Youknow[Hagen]. OnNovember30,2012

DesaiwrotetoKociuksayingIhavestufftotellyouIhadacrazydaywithbothRicks

callingme. IhaveacounterofferfromAMD12

3.DefendantDesai

DesaisignedaBPA withATIinApril2003,inwhichshepromisedthat:[d]uring,and

foraperiodoftwo(2)yearsafterterminationof [her]employmentwith[AMDDesaiwould]not

directlyorindirectlysolicitortakeawaysuppliers,customers,employeesorconsultantsof

[AMD]for[her]ownbenefitorforthebenefitofanyotherparty. AMDallegesthatDesai

solicitedKociuktoleaveAMDandaccompanyhertoNvidia. Asdiscussedabove,Kociukand

DesaiexchangedemailsonOctober24,2012inwhichtheydiscussedHagenseffortstoopenan

Nvidia officenearBoxborough,aswellasthepotentialforNvidiatopoachtalentfromAMD

andothertechcompaniesinthatarea.

Thefollowingmonth,onNovember30,2012DesaiandKociukexchangedseveral

emailsinwhichtheydiscussedKociuksongoingsearchforajoboutsideAMD. Atthistime,

DesaiwasstillanAMDemployee,buthadalreadyaccepted anofferofemploymentfrom

Nvidia. WhenKociukmentionedexploringan employment opportunitywithacorporationother

thanNvidia,sayingfigureitdoesnthurttoafewnetscastout[sic],Desairepliedwiththe

statementIwantyoutocomewithme.13 Laterthatsameday,Kociukforwardanemailfrom

12 DesaitestifiedthatbybothRicks,shewasreferringtoHagenandRickFuller,anofficeratAMDs

Boxboroughfacility.

13Desaiwentontoaddthat[she]toldRickthisinfotoday..tellinghimtimeisshort. Thereisno

evidencebeforetheCourt indicatingwhoRickmightbeinthecontextofthisemail.



12/26

12

RickFullertoDesaiinwhichFulleraskedtomeetwithKociuk. Kociuktestified thathe

believedthatFullerintendedtomakehimaretentionofferofincreasedpayand/orpromotionin

ordertoremainatNvidia. Atthattime,Kociukhadbegunsearchingforapositionoutsideof

AMD,buthadnotyetbeenofferedapositionatNvidia. DesaitoldKociuk,Nickdontfall

forit.

II. StandardofReview

PlaintiffseeksapreliminaryinjunctionunderRule65oftheFederalRulesofCivil

Procedure. Itiswell-settledlawthatatrialcourtmustconsiderfourfactorswhenevaluatinga

motionforapreliminaryinjunction:(1)themovingpartyslikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits,

(2)thepotentialforirreparableharmtothemovantwithoutsuchaninjunction,(3)thebalanceof

equitiesasbetweenthepotentialburdensuponthemovingandnon-movingparties,and(4)the

effectofaninjunction, ifany,onthepublicinterest. MaineEduc.Ass'nBenefitsTrustv.

Cioppa,695F.3d145,152(1stCir.2012)(MaineEd.Trust) (citingRossSimonsofWarwick,

Inc.v.Baccarat,Inc.,102F.3d12,15(1stCir.1996)). Ofthesefourfactors,thefirstisthe

touchstoneofthepreliminaryinjunctioninquiry.PhilipMorris,Inc.v.Harshbarger,159F.3d

670,674(1stCir. 1998). [I]fthe movingpartycannotdemonstratethatheislikelytosucceedin

hisquest,theremainingfactorsbecomemattersofidlecuriosity.MaineEd.Trust,695F.3dat

152(quotingNewComm.WirelessServs.,Inc.v.SprintCom,Inc.,287F.3d1,9(1stCir. 2002))

(emphasisadded).

Themovingpartybearstheburdenofproofforeachofthesefourfactors. Nieves-

Marquezv.PuertoRico,353F.3d108,120(1stCir.2003). Whereallpartiesagreeastothe

basicfactsofadispute,acourtisfreetoacceptastruewell-pleadedallegationsinthe complaint

anduncontrovertedaffidavitsfiledinsupportofthemotionforapreliminaryinjunction.Avaya



13/26

13

v.Ali,CIV.A.12-10660-DJC,2012WL2888474(D.Mass.July13,2012)(citingRohm&Haas

Elec.Materials,LLC v.Elec.CircuitsSupplies,Inc., 759F.Supp.2d110,114n.2(D.Mass.

2010))(internalquotationsomitted). However,wherethereissignificantdisputeastothe

underlyingfacts,theproprietyofinjunctivereliefhingesondeterminationsof credibility.Id.

(internalquotations omitted).

III. Discussion

A. LikelihoodofSuccessontheMerits

Inordertodemonstratealikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits,plaintiffsmustlooktothe

elementsnecessarytoprovetheirunderlyingclaims. Thepreliminaryinjunctionproposedby

PlaintiffbarsDefendantsfromfuturedistributionoruseofconfidentialAMDinformationand/or

solicitationofAMDemployees. Additionally,Plaintiffspre-hearingsubmissionsseekequitable

reliefonlyongroundsofmisappropriation,bothstatutoryandcommonlaw,andbreachof

contract. ThereforethisorderwillconsideronlyCountI(misappropriation oftradesecrets under

Massachusettscommonlaw),CountII(misappropriationoftradesecretsunderM.G.L.ch.93

42)andCountVI(breachofcontract throughfailuretoreturnconfidentialinformationand

solicitation).

1.Misappropriation ofTradeSecrets

a.Definitions

TheMassachusettscommonlawdefinitionofmisappropriationoftradesecretsisnot

withoutambiguity. Somecourtshaveheldthatacquisitionoftradesecretsbyimpropermeansis

sufficienttoestablishmisappropriation. Optos,Inc.v.TopconMed.Sys.,Inc.,777F.Supp.2d

217,238(D.Mass.2011). Underthisstandard,aplaintiffmustsatisfyathree-parttest: (1)the

informationat issue must constituteatradesecret,(2)theplaintiffmusthavetakenreasonable



14/26

14

stepstosecurethe confidentialityofthetradesecret,and(3)thedefendantmusthaveused

impropermeansto obtainthetradesecret. Id.at238. AMDurgestheCourttousethisbroad

definition.

Othercourtshaverequiredplaintiffstoprove actual useaboveandbeyondacquisitionby

impropermeans.EchoMail,Inc.v.Am.Exp.Co.,378F.Supp.2d 1,2(D.Mass.2005) (citing

DataGeneralCorp.v.GrummanSystemsSupportCorp.,36F.3d1147,1165(1stCir. 1994)

abrogatedonothergrounds,ReedElsevier,Inc.v.Muchnick,559U.S.154,130S.Ct.1237

(2010)). Underthisheightenedstandard,theplaintiffmustsatisfyaslightlydifferentthree-part

test:1)theexistenceofatradesecret,2)reasonablestepstopreservesecrecyand3)useof

impropermeansinbreachofaconfidentialrelationshiptoacquireandusethesecret.Id. at 2-3

(emphasisadded). Aclassicexampleofuseaboveandbeyondimproperacquisitionofatrade

secretistheproductionbyamisappropriatorofcompetinggoodsorservicesthatmakeuseofthe

tradesecret.Id. at3. DefendantsurgetheCourttoadoptthisnarrowerdefinition.

ThestatutorydefinitioninMassachusettsisasfollows:anyonewho

embezzles, steals or unlawfully takes, carries away, conceals, or copies, orby

fraud orby deception obtains, from anyperson or corporation, with intent to

converttohisownuse,anytradesecret,regardlessofvalue,shallbe liableintort

tosuchpersonorcorporationforalldamagesresultingtherefrom.

Mass. Gen. Law ch.93,42. Despitetheinconsistentcommonlawdefinitionof

misappropriation,theFirstCircuithasstatedthatthestandardofreviewformisappropriationof

tradesecretsmaybeessentiallyidenticalinMassachusettsunderboththecommonlawand

statute.IncaseInc.v.TimexCorp.,488F.3d46,52n.10(1st Cir.2007)(citingBurtenv.Milton

BradleyCo.,592F.Supp.1021,1028(D.R.I.1984)rev'd onothergrounds, 763F.2d461(1st

Cir.1985)).



15/26

15

Forthepurposesofthisorder,the Courtwillresolvethe commonlawambiguityby

relyingonIncase andusing thestatutorydefinition forboththestatutoryandcommonlaw

claims. Thus,Plaintiffmustprove theacquisition,throughimpropermeans,ofatradesecret

withtheintenttoconvertitforusebyapartyotherthantherightfulowner. Mass. Gen.Law ch.

93,42 (emphasisadded). Determinationsastointentandcredibilitywillthereforebeessential

tothisCourtsanalysisofPlaintiffslikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits.

b. TheExistenceofTradeSecretInformation

Asapreliminarymatter,thisCourtfindsthatanasyetunspecifiedportionofthefiles

takenbyFeldstein,DesaiandKociukwastradesecretinformation. These files includestrategic

licensingagreementsindraftformaswellas technicaldataregardingengineeringdetailsof

AMDproducts. InMassachusettsthestatutorydefinitionofatradesecretis anythingtangible

orintangibleorelectronicallykeptorstored,whichconstitutes,represents, evidencesorrecords

asecretscientific,technical,merchandising,productionormanagement information,design,

process,procedure,formula,inventionorimprovement.Mass. Gen. Lawch.266,30(4).

Alternatively,atradesecretisdefinedin the commonlawasa1)secret,thatis2)usedinones

business,andthat3)givestheowneranopportunitytoobtainanadvantageovercompetitors

whodonotknoworusethesecret. Optos,777F.Supp.2d at238. Technicalspecificationsand

businessstrategydataclearlysatisfybothofthesedefinitions solongastheyarekeptsecret.14

14

[T]hesubjectmatterofatradesecretmustbesecret.Mattersofpublicknowledgeorofgeneralknowledgeinanindustrycannotbeappropriatedbyoneashissecret.Optos,777F.Supp.2d at 239(quotingJ.T.

Healy&Son,Inc.v.JamesA.Murphy&Son,Inc.,357Mass.728,730,260N.E.2d723,726(1970)). Whetheror

notanyparticularpieceofinformationconstitutesasecretisaverycontext-sensitivedetermination. In

Massachusettsthisinquiryreliesuponthefollowingfactors:

(1)theextenttowhichtheinformationisknownoutsideofthebusiness;(2)theextentto

whichit isknownbyemployeesandothers involvedinthebusiness;(3) theextentofmeasures

takenbytheemployerto guardthesecrecyoftheinformation;(4)thevalueoftheinformationto

theemployerandtohiscompetitors;(5)theamountofeffortormoneyexpendedbytheemployer



16/26

16

Suchinformationneednotprovidecompetitorswithasubstantialadvantage;anyadvantage,

howeversmall orephemeral,issufficienttosatisfytheserequirements.Id.

Similarly,thereisnodoubtthatFeldstein,Desai,andKociukallsignedagreementswith

AMDthat explicitlyprohibitthemfromretaininganyconfidentialinformationafterleavingtheir

employmentatAMD. Defendantshavenotobjectedtotheenforceabilityofthesecontracts.

Courtshaveroutinelyheld asamatteroflaw thatbreachingsuchcontractsconstitutesan

unlawfultakingoftradesecretsforthepurposesofMass. Gen. Law ch.93,42. E.g., Optos,

777 F.Supp.2d at240(citingDataGen.,36F.3dat1165(1stCir. 1994)abrogatedonother

grounds,ReedElsevier, 559U.S.154).

c.AMDs RemainingBurdenofProof

ThereforetheremainingelementthatAMDmustdemonstrateinordertoestablisha

likelihoodofsuccessonthemerits istheintenttoconvertitforusebyanotherparty. Onthat

issue,AMDhasrelativelylittledirectevidence. Defendantsallnowaverthattheirintentions

wereentirelyinnocent. AMDhadnotpresented anyforensicevidenceshowing thatdatawere

giventoNvidiaorsomeothercompetitor. Facedwithsimilarfactsintheareaofpatentlaw,

courtshavefoundthat[d]irectevidenceofintentorproofofdeliberateschemingisrarely

indevelopingtheinformation;and(6)theeaseordifficultywithwhichtheinformationcouldbe

properlyacquiredorduplicatedbyothers.

Id. at239(quotingJetSprayCooler,Inc.v.Crampton,361Mass.835,840,282N.E.2d921(1972)). Here,

all partieshavestipulatedthatAMDusesindustrystandardprecautionstopreservethesecrecyofitstradesecret

informationincludingphysicalanddigitalsecuritymeasuresalongwithconfidentialityagreementswithall

employees. DefendantssuggestthatAMDfailedtotakesufficientprecautionswithitstradesecretinformation,notingthatAMDdidnotprohibitAMDemployeesfromusingUSBthumbdrives. TheCourtrejectsthisposition.

Heroiceffortsarenotrequiredtoprotecttradesecretinformation;reasonableeffortsaresufficient. Optos,777

F.Supp.2dat239-40. TheotherfactorsalsoweighinfavorofAMD. Evenifsomeoftheinformationtakenby

Defendantswasobtainablefrompublicsources,all partiesconcedethatsomeofitwasconfidential. Similarly,

whilethevalueoftheinformationisasyetundetermined,andispotentiallydifficulttoquantify,itcannot

reasonablybearguedthatthereisno valuetothisinformation. Evenindraftform,strategiclicensingagreements

couldprovidecluesastoexpectedfuturerevenuesandproductintroductiondates,aswellasinformationabout

negotiatingtactics.



17/26

17

availableininstancesofinequitableconduct,butintentmaybeinferredfromthesurrounding

circumstances.PerSeptiveBiosystems,Inc.v.PharmaciaBiotech, Inc.,12F.Supp.2d 69,72

(D.Mass.1998)(quotingCritikon,Inc.v.BectonDickinsonVascularAccess,Inc.,120F.3d

1253,1256(Fed. Cir. 1997)). Somecourtshaveusedthesameapproachformisappropriationof

tradesecrets.E.g.,EchoMail,378F.Supp.2d at3(quotingFabkomv.R.W.Smith&Assocs.,

Inc.,1996WL531873at*9(S.D.N.Y. 1996)).

Thecircumstantialevidence presentedbyAMD iscompelling. Therawquantityofdata

takenby Desai, KociukandFeldsteinis substantial.15Theyall made copiesofconfidential

AMD informationshortlybeforeleavingAMD, retainedthatinformation, andimmediately

began workingatasignificant competitor.16FeldsteinandAMDbothassertthatFeldstein,in

particular,hadaccesstoextremelysensitivebusinessstrategyandlicensingagreement

information.17 He admitstoidentifyingproblematicAMDfilesinhispossessionjust four

daysbeforeparticipatingina post-employment legaldebriefingwithAMDattorneysatwhichhe

15 KociukinparticularcopiedahugenumberoffilesfromhisAMDcomputers. Ofthesemorethanonemillionfiles,itisclearthatalargenumberareWindowssystemfilesorsimilarlyirrelevanttothisdispute.

NeverthelessitishardtoimaginehowcompleteimagesoftwocomputersusedbyanAMDhardwareengineer

couldpossiblynotcontainsignificantamountsoftradesecrettechnicalinformation.

16 TheCourtnotesthattheexactparametersofthecompetitionbetweenAMDandNvidiaaredisputed.

ThecompaniesclearlycompetedirectlyinthediscreteGPUmarket. AMDaversthattheyalsocompleteinsystem-

on-chip(SoC)integratedpackages,whileDefendantsassertthat,althoughbothcompaniesmanufactureSoCs,

theydosofordifferentmarketsectors(PCsforAMDandsmartphones/tabletsforNvidia)andarethereforenot

competitorsinthecontextofthisaction. TheCourtfindsthatAMDsdescriptionofthecompetitionbetweenAMD

andNvidia,aswellasthatcontained inNvidiasownK-10report,ispreferable. WhilethePCandmobilemarket

sectorsaredistinct,traditionalPCsarecompetingwithsmartphonesandtabletsforconsumermarketshare,and

thereforeAMDandNvidiaareattheveryleastindirectcompetitors insomeportionsoftheSoCmarket.

Additionally,allDefendantsaverthattheyarecurrentlyemployedindifferentcapacitiesatNvidiathantheywereatAMD. TheCourtismorereluctanttomakeanydeterminationsregardingthepotentialcompetitiveadvantagewhen,

forexample,anengineerwithintegrationexperienceatAMDmovestoRTLdesignatNvidia.

17 Dr.LisaSu,aseniorAMDOfficer,aversthatinformationintheJuly13filestakenbyFeldsteinwould

beextremelyvaluableforAMDscompetitors,whileFeldsteintestifiedthatthosefilesarehistoricalinnatureand,

whileverysensitivewhencreated,wouldnolongerprovideacompetitiveadvantage. TheCourtfindsitvery

difficulttoacceptthathistoricaldataaboutacompetitorsbusinesspracticesandengineeringeffortscouldnot

provideevenasmallcompetitiveadvantage.



18/26

18

wasremindedofhiscontractual obligations,includinghisdutytosurrenderallconfidential

AMDinformation. Yethesaidnothingatthatdebriefing andapparentlymadenoeffortsto

returnordeletethefilesafterwards. Desai admitstocopyingdocumentsfromasecureAMD

severcontainingtechnicaldesign specifications. Herprimarydefenseisthatthefilesshe

allegedlycopiedwerecreatedbyherhusband,andthatheignoredherexplicitinstructionsnotto

copyconfidentialAMDfiles. Onhislastdayofwork atAMD, Kociuksignedastatement

indicatingthathehadnoconfidentialAMDinformationinhispossession(thoughheapparently

didsowhilebeingescortedoutoftheBoxboroughfacilitybyAMDpersonnel).18Despite

signingthisstatementheadmitsthatheretained completecopiesoftheentirecontentsofthe

harddrivesfrombothofhisAMD-issuedcomputers afterleavingAMD.

TheCourtfindsthatthe alternative explanationsprovidedbyFeldstein, DesaiandKociuk

arenotcredible. ThislackofcredibilitycolorsDefendantsotherassertions:thattheydidnot

intendtomisappropriatethetradesecretsandthattheycouldnotpossiblyusetheirpersonal

knowledgeofconfidentialAMDinformationtobenefitNvidiaintheircurrentpositions. AMD

thereforehasareasonablelikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits withregardtoitsclaimsfor

misappropriationoftradesecrets.

2. Solicitation

TheBPAsatissuehereprohibitbothdirectandindirectsolicitation,butdonotattemptto

defineeitherterm. Wherethereissuchambiguityinacontractofadhesion,itisappropriateto

definethecontractnarrowlyagainsttheinterestofthedrafter.WilliamGallagherAssoc.Ins.

Brokers,Inc.v.Everts, 13Mass.L.Rep.716,2001WL1334763(Mass.Super.2001). Muchof

18 Kociuknotesthatthisformincludesthefollowinglanguage:Ifyouhaveinyourpossessionanywrittenmaterials

containinganyCompanyconfidential,proprietary and/ortradesecretinformation,pleasecontactyoursupervisoror

managerforinstructionsonhowtoreturnthematerialsto[AMD]. Writtenmaterialarenotexplicitlydefinedin

thisform,butIamsatisfiedthat,giventhefulltextofthedocument,electronicallystoredinformationiscapturedby

itsterms,andtoargueotherwiseisdisingenuous.



19/26

19

thecaselawonsolicitationinMassachusettsdealswithformeremployeessolicitingcustomers

fromtheirformeremployers. See e.g.,WolverineProctor&Schwartz,Inc.v.AeroglideCorp.,

402 F.Supp.2d 365,371(D.Mass.2005);Alexander&Alexander,Inc.v.Danahy,21Mass.

App.Ct.488,491,499(1986);Getmanv.USIHoldingsCorp.,05-3286-BLS2,2005WL

2183159(Mass.Super.Sept.1,2005);StateStreetCorp.v.Barr,10Mass.L.Rep.599,at*12

14(Mass. Super. 1999). Colleaguescangenerallybeexpectedtohaveevencloserpersonal

relationshipsthandoemployeesandcustomers; andwherevercloserworkingrelationshipsare

involved,courtsmust bearinthemindthefactthat solicitationcanbequitesubtle. See Ziplink,

L.L.C.v.PencomSystems,Inc.,No.97-01787B,1999WL1318966,*3 (March17,1999)

(observingthatthesolicitedemployeehadcloseworkingrelationshipwithdefendantand

couldhavebeenencouragedtoapplyinanynumberofsubtleways).

Plaintiffurgesmetodefinesolicitationas any encouragement,beitovertorsubtle.

Theyfurtherassertthatcarefullyorchestratedattemptstocircumventtechnicalliabilityundera

nonsolicitationclausearealsosolicitation. SeePartyLiteGifts,Inc.v.Macmillan,No.8:10-CV-

1490-T-27EAJ,2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS128905,*39n.20(M.D.Fla.Sept.11,2012)(applying

Massachusettslawanddescribingdefendantsasengaginginadubiousattempttostructuretheir

[solicitous]activities soastoavoidliability). Plaintiffscounselstatedatthehearing,

MassachusettslawsaysifyousayI'mleavingthatcompany,thatisnotsolicitation,howeverif

yousayI'mleavingthiscompanyandwink,thenIthinkthatis.

Conversely,Defendants urgemetoadoptamuchnarrower viewofsolicitation. They

firstassertthatactivestepstopersuadetheemployeetoleaveemploymentwiththecompany

arerequired. Defendantscounsel wentevenfurther atthehearing, statingthat [i]fsomeoneis

leavinganywayandyousayyouwantthemtocomewithyou,Idon't thinkthatsproper



20/26

20

encouragement. Withthisargument,Defendantseffectivelyassertthatevenactive

encouragementmightnotbesolicitationinthepropercontext. Defendantsalsonote thatthe

identityoftheinitiatingpartyisasignificantfactorinanalyzingtheproprietyofpotentially

solicitouscommunications. See Gallagher, 2001WL1334763 n.28. Thus,underDefendants

proposeddefinition,ifFeldsteinorHagenhadinitiatedcontactwithDesai,thethresholdfor

solicitationwouldbemarkedlylowerthanifDesaiinitiatedthecontact.

Thereismeritin both positions. Employersclearlyhavealegitimatebusinessinterestin

preservingthetalentandgoodwilloftheiremployees. Gallagher, 2001WL1334763. Yetitis

alsoclearlyagainstpublicpolicyandoverlyburdensomeonindividualstopermitemployersto

categoricallyprohibitanyandallcommunicationsbetweenformerandcurrentemployeesin

ordertoprotectthis legitimateinterest. See id. Theidentityoftheinitiatingpartyishelpfulin

balancingthesetwointerests. Id. However,thatdoesnotmeanthatitisimpossibleforaformer

employeetosolicitacurrentemployeewheneverthecurrentemployeeinitiatesthecontact.

In lightoftheconsiderationsstatedaboveandforthepurposesofthisorder,Iwilldefine

solicitationasfollows. Directsolicitation iswhatmightbeseenastraditionalsolicitation,

encompassinganyactiveverbalorwrittenencouragementtoleaveAMD,evenifnotintendedto

harmAMD. Duetothepersonalrelationshipsthatdevelopbetweencolleagues, liabilityfor

indirectsolicitationrequiresamorecontext-sensitiveinquiry. Thesubtlehintsand

encouragementsaddressedbytheZiplinkcourtcanconstituteindirectsolicitation. However, to

preservethepublicsinterestinfreepersonalcommunications,suchsolicitationshould onlybe

found wherethefinder-of-fact issatisfiedthatthesolicitoractuallyintendedtoinducethe

solicitee toleaveAMD. Havingestablishedaworkingdefinitionofsolicitation,IturntoAMDs

specificallegations.



21/26

21

a.FeldsteinsAllegedSolicitation

AMDsonlyactualevidencethatFeldsteinsolicitedDesai,oranyotherAMDemployee,

concernsalunchmeetinghehadwithDesaiinNovember2012. BothFeldsteinandDesaiassert

thatthiswasapersonallunchandAMDhaspresentednospecificevidencetocontradictthis

assertion. Thispaucityofdetail iscripplingtoAMDsclaim. Themerefact thatDesaimetwith

Feldsteinacolleagueofalmostten yearswhileinCaliforniaforajobinterviewcannot

supportanallegationofsolicitation. Feldsteindidadmittomakingpositivecommentsabouthis

experienceatNvidia. Undersomecircumstances,suchstatements couldconstituteindirect

solicitation,butthereisnoevidencetosuggestthatFeldsteinhadanyintentionofinducingDesai

toleaveAMD. Tothecontrary,FeldsteinandDesaibothassert thatheencouragedhertoremain

atAMDtoassumeadirector-levelposition.19Withoutadditionalinformationregardingthe

contentofanycommunicationsbetweenFeldsteinandDesai,orFeldsteinsparticular

motivationsinmeeting withDesai, AMDisunlikelytosucceedonthemeritsofitssolicitation

claimagainstFeldstein.

b.DesaisAllegedSolicitation

AMDsallegationsofsolicitationagainstDesaistemfrommultiple emailssentbyherto

Kociukduringtheautumnof2012. Manyofthesecommunicationsappeartobenormal

conversationbetween closecolleagues aboutcurrentevents. Merediscussionoffacts, suchas

HagensemploymentatNvidia, is notsufficienttoestablishthatsolicitation occurred. Sucha

findingwouldeffectivelypreventanyprivate discussionofadversenewsbetweenAMD

employees. DesaisstatementsaboutherongoingapplicationforemploymentatNvidiaare

19ThisclaimisgivensomecredibilitybythefactthatAMDdidofferDesaiadirector-levelposition,along

withasubstantialretentionbonus,inlateNovember2012.



22/26

22

similarlynotcapturedbyher BPA asit isagainstpublicpolicy tobaremployees from any

personalconversationsabout theirowncareerswiththeircolleagues.

However,DesaisstatementthatshewantedKociuktojoinheratNvidiaismore

troubling. Thisisprecisely thesortof inducement betweencolleagues toleaveAMDenmasse

thattheBPAs seektoprevent. Itispossible thatDesaididnotevenintendtoactivelysolicit

Kociukwhenshemadethisstatement;sheknewKociukwasalreadysearchingforjobsoutside

AMDandwasperhaps expressingonlyherdesiretocontinueworkingwithhim. However,that

isirrelevantgivenhercontractualobligationsundertheBPA. Thisstatementwentbeyond

merelyprovidingKociukcareeradvice andconstituteddirectencouragementtoleaveAMD.

OnthebasisoftheevidencepresentedAMDislikelytosucceedonthemeritsofitsclaimwith

regardtoDesaissolicitationofKociuk.

c.HagensAllegedSolicitation

TheevidencethatHagensolicitedDesaitoworkatAMDisindirect,butcompelling. On

November13,Desaitold Kociukthat[Hagen]calledlastnight[on theeveningof Nov12,

2012] Madeeverythingseemurgentandaskedhow quicklyIcouldgivenotice,youknow

[Hagen]. AssumingDesaisreportingofHagensstatementisaccurate(somethingneither

Desai,norHagencontestedatthehearing),thisisclearlysolicitation. BothHagenandDesai

testifiedthatthiscommentwas intendedasajoke,madebecauseofDesaistendencytobeover-

eager aboutprofessionalopportunities. Theysuggestthattheappendedstatementyouknow

[Hagen]clearlyindicatesthatthewholeexchangehadbeenajoke. Thisexplanationisnot

credible andinanyevent,thesestatements constitute direct solicitationevenifmadeinnocently.

AswithDesaisstatementIwantyoutocomewithme,thisispreciselythesortofactive

encouragementthatAMDsoughttoforestall throughitsBPAs. Therefore,onthebasisofthe



23/26

23

evidencepresentedAMDislikelytosucceedonthemeritsofitsclaimwithregardtoHagens

solicitationofDesai.

B. PotentialforIrreparableHarm

IamsatisfiedthatAMDislikelytosufferirreparableharmintheabsenceofequitable

reliefwithregardtobothmisappropriationandsolicitation.

1.MisappropriationofTradeSecrets

Defendantscorrectlyassertthatinjunctions...arerarelywarrantedwherenothreatof

futureharmexists.CapabilityGroup,Inc.v.AmericanExpressTravelRelatedServicesCo.,

Inc.,658F.3d75,82(1

st

Cir.2011). Defendantsalsocorrectlynotethatmerelyproving

likelihoodofsuccesson themeritsnolongerentitles patentinfringementplaintiffs toa

presumptionofirreparableharm. eBayInc.v.MercExchange,L.L.C.,547U.S.388,394,126S.

Ct.1837,1841(2006). TheFirstCircuithasdeclinedtoextendthisprecedenttotrademark

disputes. Swarovski Aktiengesellschaftv.Bldg.No.19,Inc.,704F.3d44,54(1stCir.2013). It

remainsunclearwhethersuchapresumptionshouldapplyintradesecretdisputessuchasthis,

thoughpersuasiveauthorityhasusedsuchapresumption. SeeOptos,777F.Supp.2d at 241.

These facts,however, are inappositehere. Asdiscussedabove,itisclearthatFeldstein,

DesaiandKociuk allhad substantial accesstoconfidentialAMDinformation. AMDhasalso

providedsufficientevidencetoshowthatAMDandNvidiacompeteinatleastsomemarket

segments(mostparticularlythediscreteGPUmarket). Courtshaveroutinelyheldthat in such

situations,thereisthepotentialfor irreparableharm. Bio-ImagingTechnologies,Inc.v.

Marchant,584F.Supp.2d 322,330(D.Mass.2008)(citingSierraClubv.Larson,769F.Supp.

420,422(D. Mass. 1991));see CapabilityGroup,658F.3dat82.



24/26

24

Feldstein,DesaiandKociuk arguethatanyfutureharmisimpossiblebecause theyhave

voluntarilysurrenderedallconfidentialAMDinformationintheir possessiontoaneutralthird

partyforforensicexamination. Ifindthisargumentineffective fortworeasons:(1)Feldstein,

DesaiandKociukscredibilityregardingtheirtotalandcompletesurrenderoftherelevant

informationisunpersuasiveinlightoftheirapparentdisregardforsuchconcernsinthepastand;

(2) attheveryleast,Feldstein,DesaiandKociukmustallrememberlargeamountsof

confidential AMDinformationthattheylearnedduringtheiremployment. Suchmemories

cannotreadilybesurrenderedtoaneutralthirdparty.

Whereanactualthreatofirreparableharmexists,andthecredibilityofthepartiestobe

enjoinedisinquestion,equitablereliefiswithinthediscretionofthisCourt. Thisistrueeven

withoutrelyinguponthepresumptionofirreparableharminAMDspreferredauthority. See

e.g.,ANSYS,Inc.v.ComputationalDynamicsN.Am.,Ltd.,595F.3d75,80(1st Cir.2010);

Optos,777F.Supp.2d at241;SchawbelCorp.v.ConairCorp.,122F.Supp.2d 71,84(D.Mass.

2000)aff'd,15F.App'x800(Fed.Cir.2001); CTCCommc'ns,Inc.v.BellAtl.Corp.,14

F.Supp.2d 133,146(D.Me.1998).

2. Solicitation

Similarly,thepotentialharmcausedbysolicitationisdifficult toquantifyand remedy.

Courtshaveroutinelyacceptedthethreatoffuturesolicitation asanirreparableharm. Optos,

777 F.Supp.2d at241(citingSchawbelCorp.v.ConairCorp.,122F.Supp.2d71,8384 (D.

Mass. 2000)). Defendantsarguethatalloftheallegedsoliciteeswerealreadycommittedto

leavingAMD,andthereforeAMDcannotproveanyirreparableharm hasalreadyoccurred. This

misstatestheburdenAMDmustmeetinordertoreceiveinjunctive relief. Atthisstageofthe

litigation AMDmustshowa likelihood that Defendantswill engageinfuturesolicitationgiven



25/26

25

theirallegedpastsolicitation. SeeVoiceoftheArabWorld,Inc.v.MDTVMed.NewsNow,Inc.,

645F.3d26,32(1st Cir.2011). Onceagain,thisCourtsdeterminationsastocredibilityare

important whenconsideringhowlikelydefendantsaretosolicitAMD employeesinthefuture.

WhileHagenandDesaibothclaimthattheirstatements wereentirelyinnocent,theevidenceon

therecordsuggeststhattheybreachedtheirnon-solicitationagreementswithAMD. Imust

concludethattheydidsoeitherbecausetheydidnttrulyunderstand theirobligationsundertheir

BPAs,orthat theywillfully ignoredthoseobligations. Ifindthat theriskoffuturesolicitationis

substantialenoughtonecessitate equitablerelief.

C. BalanceofEquities

ThebalanceofequitiesasbetweenthepotentialburdensonPlaintiffversusthoseon

DefendantsweighsveryheavilyinAMDsfavor. TheequitablereliefsoughtbyAMDdoes

little morethanenjoin Defendantsfromengaginginactivitiesfromwhich theyarealready

contractually barred. Totheextentthatapreliminaryinjunctioninconveniences thepersonal

livesofDefendants(e.g.,throughincreasedpressspeculation),themarginalburdenoverand

abovethemerefactofthislitigationisdeminimisincomparisontotheriskof irreparableharm

toPlaintiff.

D. PublicI nterest

Asdiscussedaboveinsection III(A)(2),thepublicinterestdoesweighagainstadopting

anoverlybroad definitionofsolicitation. Certainly,AMDandotherbusinesses havea

legitimateinterestinholdingontotheirtalentedemployees,butavery expansive definitionof

solicitationwouldhaveasignificantchillingeffectoninterpersonalcommunicationsbetween

colleagues. SeeGallagher, 2001WL1334763. Thisisanunduehardshiponindividuals,and

alsoone thatwould likelydolittlemorethanfosterexactlythesortofemployeediscontent that



26/26

AMDisseekingtoavoid. Beyondthislimitedissue,thepublicatlargehasnostronginterestfor

oragainsttheequitablereliefPlaintiffseeks.

IV. Conclusion

TheCourtnotesthattheevidentiaryrecordtodateisinsufficienttoprovethatPlaintiff

hassufferedanyquantifiabledamagesasaresultofDefendantsactions. Thisisnobarto

injunctivereliefas,[u]nderMassachusettslaw,apersonwhoisinjuredbyabreachofcontract

hasarighttojudgmentevenifthebreachcausednoharm.Flynnv.AKPeters,Ltd.,377F.3d

13,23(1stCir.2004)(citingNathanv.TremontStorageWarehouse,328Mass.168,102N.E.2d

421,423(1951)). TheevidencepresentedhereestablishesthatPlaintiffislikelytoachieveat

leastanominaljudgment

Additionally,oftheremainingthreeelementsnecessaryforinjunctiverelief,twoweigh

infavorofPlaintiffandthefourthdoesnotfavoreitherparty. AMDhasthereforesatisfiedthe

testforapreliminaryinjunction. Thesoleexceptionistheclaimforbreachofcontract(by

meansofsolicitation)againstFeldstein. Feldsteinwillthereforenotbeenjoinedfromfuture

solicitation.20 Plaintiffsapplication forapreliminaryinjunctionis GRANTED inpartand

DENIED inpart. TheTRO willbe dissolvedand replacedby a preliminaryinjunction,theexact

languageof which willbesetforthinaseparateorder.

SOORDERED

/s/TimothyS.HillmanTIMOTHYS.HILLMAN

DISTRICTJUDGE

20TheCourtnotesthatFeldsteinis,however,barredbycontractfromsolicitinganyAMDclients,

customersoremployees, withouttheconsentofanAMDOfficer,fornomorethanoneyearaftertheterminationof

hisemploymentatAMD.


AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)

Documents