Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Filing 190

Declaration of Joshua L. Sohn in Support of Fusion Garage's Reply to Motion To Dismiss Fraud and Unfair Competition Claims filed byFusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Watson, Thomas) (Filed on 10/21/2010)

Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Doc. 190 Att. 1

EXHIBIT A

Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:09-cv-05812-RS Documentl39

Filed05/17/10 Pagel of 43
PAGES 1 - 43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG, JUDGE
INTERSERVE, INC. DBA TECHCRUNCH, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND CRUNCHPAD, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS, VS. FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD., A SINGAPORE COMPANY, DEFENDANT. NO. C 09-5812 RS

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY MAY 13, 2010 2:00 O'CLOCK P.M.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFFS: WINSTON & STRAWN 101 CALIFORNIA STREET 39TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-5802 ANDREW P. BRIDGES, ESQUIRE MATTHEW A. SCHERB , ESQUIRE

BY:

FOR DEFENDANT:

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES LLP 555 TWIN DOLPHIN DRIVE, 5TH FLOOR REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA 94065 BY: CLAUDE M. STERN, ESQUIRE EVETTE D. PENNYPACKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW

REPORTED BY:

KATHERINE WYATT, CSR 9866, RMR, RPR OFFICIAL REPORTER - US DISTRICT COURT COMPUTERIZED TRANSCRIPTION BY ECLIPSE

KATHERINE WYATT, OFFICIAL REPORTER, CSR, RMR [phone]

Case3:09-cv-05812-RS Document139
1 2 3
4 5

Filed05/17/10 Page7 of 43

7

THE MISAPPROPRIATION OF BUSINESS IDEAS, I TEND TO THINK THAT THE DEFENDANTS ARE RIGHT ABOUT THAT CLAIM. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A VIABLE CLAIM THERE. THE TWO CASES THAT SEEM TO BE CITED, THE DESNY CASE, WHICH IS A CONTRACT, IMPLIED CONTRACT CONCEPT, AND THE HOLLYWOOD CASE, WHICH GOES MORE ALONG TORT LINES, I DON'T THINK EITHER OF THOSE CLAIMS SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THERE IS SUCH A THING AS AN AVAILABLE CLAIM FOR MISAPPROPRIATION OF BUSINESS IDEAS.

6
7

8 9 10
11

I KNOW THAT PLAINTIFF SAYS:
"WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TRADE SECRETS. WE'RE

TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT. IF THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT TRADE SECRETS, THEY WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL PREEMPTION PROBLEM." BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS I JUST DON'T THINK THERE'S A CLAIM THERE, AND I'M INCLINED TO DISMISS THAT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. THE FRAUD CLAIM, I THINK THE FRAUD CLAIM MAY WELL BE A VIABLE CLAIM. I AM NOT, HOWEVER, SATISFIED THAT NINE -- I THINK 9 (B) APPLIES, AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE THAT THERE'S BEEN A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF SPECIFICITY, PARTICULARITY ON THE FOURTH CLAIM, FROM ALL THE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN FLYING BY ME WITH RESPECT TO THE PAPERS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. I SUSPECT THAT THAT THAT -- THERE MAY BE MATERIAL THERE THAT WILL PROVIDE THE PLAINTIFF WITH A SUFFICIENT BASIS TO PROCEED WITH A 9 (B)

12 13
14

15 16 17 18 . 19 20 21
22

23
24

25

OBLIGATION, SO I'M INCLINED TO DISMISS THAT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

KATHERINE WYATT, OFFICIAL REPORTER, CSR, RMR

( 925) 212-5224