PQ Labs, Inc. et al v. Qi et al

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 12 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

PQ LABS, INC.,

5
6
7

Plaintiff,
v.
YANG QI, et al.,

8
9

No. C 12-0450 CW
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
(Docket No. 12)

Defendants.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

On January 27, 2012, Plaintiff PQ Labs, Inc. filed a

12

complaint against Defendants Zaagtech Inc., Jinpeng Li, Yang Qi,

13

Haipeng Li and Andy Nguyen alleging, inter alia, claims for

14

misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement and

15

unfair competition in regard to Plaintiff's computer touch screen

16

products.

17

parte temporary restraining order (TRO), arguing that there was a

18

grave risk of irreparable harm because, on March 7 and 8, 2012,

19

Defendants were to attend the Digital Signage Expo, an important

20

trade show in the touch screen industry, where they would be

21

exhibiting touch screen products that incorporate Plaintiff's

22

proprietary, confidential information.

23

On March 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an ex

On March 8, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation in which

24

Plaintiff agreed to extend the time for Defendants to respond to

25

its complaint, from February 21, 2012 to March 12, 2012, or ten

26

days from the date Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.1

27
28

1

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 12, 2012.
Therefore, Defendants' response is due on March 22, 2012.

1

Also on March 8, 2012, Defendants Zaagtech Inc., Jinpeng Li

2

and Yang Qi filed a motion for leave to file an opposition to the

3

TRO motion and requested that the Court not rule on the TRO until

4

they had the opportunity to file their opposition.

5

2012, Defendant Andy Nguyen filed a response to the TRO motion,

6

indicating that, because Plaintiff did not seek to enjoin him, he

7

neither opposed nor supported Plaintiff's motion.

8

denied Plaintiff's assertions that he improperly disclosed its

9

confidential customer lists and information, and urged the Court

On March 9,

However, he

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to delay ruling on the TRO until it could fully scrutinize

11

Plaintiff's evidence.

12

On March 9, 2012, the Court issued an Order denying the

13

motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order, stating that

14

it would consider the motion once Defendants responded.

15

issued a briefing schedule allowing Defendants to file an

16

opposition within two court days after receiving actual notice of

17

the motion and allowing Plaintiff to file a reply one court day

18

thereafter.

19

has considered their earlier filings.

20

further.

The Court

Defendants filed no further opposition but the Court
Plaintiff has filed nothing

21

Because the Digital Signage Expo has passed, it appears that

22

the exigent circumstance which gave rise to the need for a TRO no

23

longer exists.

24

Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for a TRO is denied without

25

prejudice to noticing it for hearing as a motion for a preliminary

26

injunction.

27

preliminary injunction heard on shortened time and Defendants will

If Plaintiff wishes to have its motion for a

28
2

1

not so stipulate, Plaintiff may file a motion to shorten time

2

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-3.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: 3/21/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3