Nanometrics, Incorporated v. Optical Solutions, Inc.
Filing
154
ORDER DENYING 139 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/3/2023. (mdllc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2023)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
NANOMETRICS, INCORPORATED, et
al.,
7
8
Plaintiffs,
9
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
v.
10
OPTICAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Lead Case No. 18-cv-00417-BLF
Case No. 18-cv-03276-BLF
[Re: ECF No. 139]
Defendants.
12
OPTICAL SOLUTIONS
INCORPORATED,
13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
NANOMETRICS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
This action arises out of a contractual relationship between Nanometrics Incorporated
(“Nanometrics”),1 a manufacturer of semiconductor testing equipment, and Optical Solutions, Inc.
(“OSI”), a builder of optical lenses used in semiconductor testing equipment. Each party has an
20
operative complaint in this consolidated action; presently before the Court is Nanometrics’s
21
motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”) on OSI’s Fourth Amended Complaint, which
22
alleges claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Mot. for Summ. J. (“Mot.”), ECF
23
24
25
No. 139. The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on June 29, 2023. Having considered the
briefing and oral argument of the parties, as well as the governing law, the Court DENIES
Nanometrics’s Motion.
26
27
28
1
Nanometrics is now known as Onto Innovation, Inc. See ECF No. 73. To preserve clarity across
the record in this action, the Court will continue to refer to the company as Nanometrics.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
I.
BACKGROUND
2
A.
3
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Nanometrics is a company that
Factual Background
4
manufactures and sells equipment used to measure semiconductor wafers. Decl. of Bruce
5
Crawford (“Crawford Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 139-4. Companies such as Samsung, Intel, and
6
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (“TSMC”) purchase such measuring equipment
7
to manufacture semiconductor chips of consistent quality. Decl. of Amy Smith (“Smith Decl.”)
8
Exh. 12,2 Expert Report of Julie Bentley, Ph.D. (“Bentley Report”) ¶¶ 18–19, ECF No. 139-2.
9
These chip manufacturing companies generally use one model of measuring equipment per
10
generation—usually three to five years—of chip technology; accordingly, Nanometrics and other
11
measuring equipment companies compete to be chosen by chip manufacturers as the equipment
12
provider, which secures multiple years of revenue from that manufacturer. Id. ¶ 19.
Optical lenses are a critical component of semiconductor measuring equipment. Decl. of
13
14
John Leon (“Nanometrics Leon Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 139-5. OSI is an optical lens manufacturer.
15
Decl. of Bradley J. Piccirillo (“Piccirillo Decl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 141-1. In December 2012,
16
Nanometrics contracted with OSI to manufacture a 40-micron optical lens. Fourth Am. Compl.
17
(“4AC”) ¶ 17, ECF No. 92; Answer ¶ 17, ECF No. 108. On June 19, 2013, Nanometrics and OSI
18
discussed Nanometrics’s need for a 25-micron lens. Piccirillo Decl. ¶ 3. On July 9, 2013, OSI
19
issued a quote to Nanometrics for 25-micron lenses. 4AC ¶ 25; Answer ¶ 25. On August 1, 2013,
20
Nanometrics issued a purchase order to OSI for 25-micron lenses. Decl. of Matthew R. Johnson
21
(“Johnson Decl.”) Exh. G,3 at 1–3, ECF No. 141-9.
Between August 2 and August 7, 2013, OSI ordered specialized equipment costing over
22
23
$838,000. Exh. I, at 1–7. OSI claims it placed these orders in reliance upon ongoing negotiations
24
and understandings reached with Nanometrics, i.e., that OSI and Nanometrics would enter into an
25
exclusivity agreement under which OSI would be Nanometrics’s exclusive supplier of 40-micron
26
and 25-micron lenses. Exh. E (“Piccirillo Dep. Tr.”) 174:4–177:19.
27
28
2
3
All numbered exhibits are attached to the Smith Declaration, ECF No. 139-1.
All lettered exhibits are attached to the Johnson Declaration, ECF No. 141-2.
2
1
On August 7, 2013, Nanometrics issued a revised purchase order to OSI for 25-micron
2
lenses. Exh. 17, at 4–6; Exh. G, at 4–9. The purchase order provided for a due date of December
3
10, 2013. Id. On September 9, 2013, the parties executed an agreement (the “Agreement”) titled
4
“Addendum to Purchase Agreement,” which OSI describes as the “Exclusivity Agreement.” Exh.
5
41; Exh. M. The Addendum amends the 40-micron and revised 25-micron purchase orders issued
6
by Nanometrics. Id. It provides:
7
If, on or before the date of completion established in the design
specification, which date may be amended by mutual agreement, OSI
is able to produce small spot lenses which meets [sic] the
specifications and commercial product performance specifications
established by Nano[metrics] in the applicable design specifications,
OSI shall be Nano[metrics’s] Exclusive Supplier of Small Spot
Lenses for the commercial life of the products in which the Small Spot
Lenses are deployed.
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Id. § 3. Small spot lenses are defined elsewhere in the Agreement. See id. § 2.2. The Addendum
12
further provides:
13
In the event that OSI is not able to meet the product specifications,
commercial product performance, or peak volumes to meet
Nano[metrics’s] commercial requirements, . . . Nano[metrics] may
purchase Small Spot Lens [sic] from alternative suppliers.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Nano[metrics] shall give notice to
OSI in the event that such commercial requirements have increased,
and OSI shall have a reasonable period of time to ramp up to meet
such commercial volumes.
14
15
16
17
18
Id. § 4.1.
19
OSI placed two further orders for specialized equipment that it claims it would not have
20
made these orders absent the Agreement. Exh. I, at 8–16; see Piccirillo Dep. Tr. 206:19–207:1.
21
On December 28, 2013, Nanometrics modified its 25-micron purchase order to indicate a
22
new delivery date of September 30, 2014. Exh. V. The modified purchase order required a total
23
of 24 units of OSI’s 25-micron lenses. Id. OSI delivered 11 lenses by September 30, 2014, and
24
delivered the remaining 13 lenses by October 6, 2016. Exh. H, at 8. OSI claims that
25
Nanometrics’s then-Vice President of World Wide Operations, John Leon, instructed OSI to retain
26
lenses past September 30, 2014. Exh. L (“OSI Leon Decl.”) ¶ 14.
27
28
In 2016, OSI learned that Nanometrics had been purchasing 25-micron lenses from another
optical lens manufacturer, Melles Griot. Piccirillo Dep. Tr. 309:1–14.
3
B.
1
Procedural Background
OSI filed suit against Nanometrics in August 2017 in New Hampshire state court. Compl.,
2
ECF No. 1-1, Case No. 18-cv-3276 (N.D. Cal.). The case was removed to the District Court of
3
New Hampshire on September 18, 2017, and transferred to the Northern District of California on
4
May 29, 2018. See ECF Nos. 1, 30, Case No. 18-cv-3276 (N.D. Cal.). In the meantime, a
5
complaint filed by Nanometrics against OSI in California state court had been removed to this
6
Court on January 19, 2018. See ECF No. 1. OSI answered that complaint on January 26, 2018.
7
ECF No. 12. On June 14, 2018, OSI’s action was consolidated with the Nanometrics action. ECF
8
No. 39. After multiple rounds of motions to dismiss, OSI filed its Fourth Amended Complaint on
9
July 7, 2020, and Nanometrics filed its answer on December 22, 2020. ECF Nos. 92, 108. The
10
Fourth Amended Complaint brings claims for (1) breach of contract and (2) promissory estoppel.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
See 4AC. On March 1, 2023, Nanometrics moved for summary judgment on both of OSI’s
claims. See generally Mot. OSI filed an opposition. See Opp’n, ECF No. 141. The parties
13
presented oral argument on June 29, 2023.
14
15
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs motions for summary judgment. Summary
16
judgment is appropriate if the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
17
18
19
20
the nonmoving party “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322 (1986). The current version of Rule 56 authorizes a court to grant “partial summary
judgment” to dispose of less than the entire case and even just portions of a claim or defense. See
21
Fed. R. Civ. P. advisory committee's note, 2010 amendments; Ochoa v. McDonald's Corp., 133 F.
22
23
Supp. 3d 1228, 1232 (N.D. Cal. 2015). As such, a court can, “when warranted, selectively fillet a
claim or defense without dismissing it entirely.” Id.
24
The moving party bears the burden of showing there is no material factual dispute, by
25
26
27
“identifying for the court the portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the
absence of any genuine issue of material fact.” T.W. Elec. Serv. Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors
Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the
28
4
1
Court “does not assess credibility or weigh the evidence, but simply determines whether there is a
2
genuine factual issue for trial.” House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 559–60 (2006). A fact is “material”
3
if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” and a dispute as to a material
4
fact is “genuine” if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to decide in favor of
5
the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary
6
judgment must be denied if “a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [non-moving party]
7
on the evidence presented.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
8
III.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
DISCUSSION
A.
Breach of Contract
10
OSI alleges that Nanometrics breached the Agreement by refusing to use the 25-micron
11
lenses manufactured by OSI, failing to provide OSI with the opportunity to meet Nanometrics’s
12
commercial requirements, failing to provide OSI with the opportunity to quote a revised scope of
13
work, and ultimately contracting with another supplier for the 25-micron lenses. 4AC ¶¶ 100–109.
14
Under California law, a breach of contract claim requires “(1) the existence of the contract, (2)
15
plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting
16
damages to the plaintiff.” Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811, 821 (2011).
17
Nanometrics argues that OSI cannot prove the first, second, and fourth elements. Mot. 16.
18
1.
Existence of an Enforceable Contract
19
The essential elements for the existence of a contract are (a) parties capable of contracting;
20
(b) mutual consent; (c) a lawful object; and (d) consideration. Oberstein v. Live Nation Ent., Inc.,
21
60 F. 4th 505, 510 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1550). If the purported consideration is
22
merely an illusory promise that imposes no definite obligation to perform, the contract lacks
23
mutuality of obligation. Money Store Inv. Corp. v. S. Cal. Bank, 98 Cal. App. 4th 722, 728 (2002)
24
(citing Kowal v. Day, 20 Cal. App. 720, 724 (1971)). However, “[a]n agreement that is otherwise
25
illusory may be enforced where the promisor has rendered at least part performance.” Id.
26
Nanometrics contends that the Agreement is not an enforceable contract because it lacks
27
consideration. Mot. 17–18. Nanometrics also appears to argue that any purported promise by OSI
28
was in fact illusory because OSI’s performance was optional and OSI did not render part
5
1
performance. Mot. 16–17. OSI counters that its consideration was its definite obligation to
2
perform under the Agreement, and that in any event it commenced performance. Opp’n 15–17.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
The Court previously held that the Agreement did not impose a definite obligation to
4
perform on OSI. Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss Third Am. Compl. (“MTD Order”) 15–16, ECF
5
No. 87. The issue at hand is therefore whether there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether OSI
6
rendered part performance. Nanometrics contends that OSI did not partially perform because it
7
“failed to provide any conforming lenses in accordance with the agreed-upon schedule,” and that
8
OSI’s delivery of the 25-micron lenses—for which Nanometrics paid in full—was performance of
9
the 25-micron purchase order and cannot be performance of the Agreement. Mot. 16–17 (citing
10
Exhs. 17, 9, 35, 18). The Court first notes that the Agreement by its terms amends the 25-micron
11
purchase order. Exh. M, at 1. Further, OSI has provided evidence that it purchased specialized
12
equipment for the lenses, see Exh. I; that the lenses did in fact meet the relevant specifications, see
13
OSI Leon Decl.; that OSI continually worked to meet Nanometrics’s changing specifications, see
14
Exhs. R, S, T; and that OSI provided the number of lenses requested by the September 30, 2014
15
completion date, and retained the remainder as instructed by Nanometrics, see OSI Leon Decl.
16
Based on the evidence submitted by OSI—and particularly the existence of contradictory
17
declarations from John Leon submitted by the two parties—the Court finds that there is a genuine
18
dispute of fact as to whether OSI rendered part performance of the Agreement.
19
20
2.
Performance or Excuse for Nonperformance
Nanometrics argues that even if the Agreement is an enforceable contract, OSI cannot
21
prove performance of any of the three conditions for exclusivity, i.e., delivery by the required date
22
of completion; satisfaction of the design specifications; and satisfaction of the commercial product
23
performance specifications. Mot. 18–20. OSI contends that delivery was timely; there was no
24
fixed and final set of design specifications; and that Nanometrics never provided OSI with
25
commercial specifications. Opp’n 17–19.
26
27
28
a.
Date of Completion
Nanometrics states that the date of completion at the time the Agreement was executed was
December 10, 2013, and that the undisputed evidence shows that OSI failed to deliver any lenses
6
1
by that date. Mot. 19 (citing, e.g., Nanometrics Leon Decl. ¶ 25). OSI has provided evidence that
2
by mid- to late-November 2013, Nanometrics did not consider the December 10 deadline to be
3
operative. Exh. C (“Barada Dep. Tr.”) 177:23–179:7. And as noted above, there is evidence that
4
Nanometrics updated the December 10, 2013 delivery date to September 30, 2014, and that OSI
5
provided the requested number of lenses to Nanometrics by that date. OSI Leon Decl. ¶ 14.
6
Accordingly, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether OSI delivered lenses by the
7
modified date of completion.
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
b.
Product Design Specifications
Nanometrics has introduced evidence that none of the lenses OSI delivered through 2015
10
met all of the product design specifications. Decl. of Daniel W. Thompson (“Thompson Decl.”) ¶
11
31. However, OSI has provided evidence that there was no final set of design requirements
12
because the 25-micron lens project was a feasibility study to design a prototype. See, e.g.,
13
Piccirillo Decl. ¶ 14 (describing “significant design and mechanical changes” required by
14
Nanometrics in late December 2013); Exhs. R, S, & T (emails regarding same). In June 2014,
15
Nanometrics’s Vice President of Engineering informed OSI that it could relax one of the
16
requirements of the specification. Exh. P, at 1. These documents indicate an issue of fact as to
17
what the product designs were at various points in time, and whether OSI met those specifications.
18
19
c.
Commercial Product Specifications
The parties appear to agree that Nanometrics never provided OSI with commercial product
20
specifications. See Mot. 20 (“[T]he parties never reached agreement on commercial terms.”);
21
Opp’n 18 (“Nanometrics . . . never provided OSI with the commercial product performance
22
specifications.”). As OSI notes, Nanometrics’s failure to provide the commercial specifications to
23
OSI does not permit Nanometrics to now claim that OSI failed to perform with respect to the
24
commercial specifications. Cal. Civil Code § 1511(1); see Unruh v. Smith, 123 Cal. App. 2d 431,
25
437 (1954) (“Prevention of performance by the promisee is equivalent to performance by the
26
promisor.”); see Opp’n 18.
27
28
3.
Damages
OSI claims that Nanometrics’s breach of the Agreement entitles OSI to damages,
7
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
“including lost profits, interest, engineering and capital costs, attorney’s fees and costs, and all
2
other available damages.” 4AC ¶ 109. Nanometrics argues that OSI cannot establish lost profits
3
because the Agreement only covered sales of Nanometrics products in which one of five defined
4
“Small Spot Lenses” were deployed, and Nanometrics did not sell any such products. Mot. 20–22.
5
Specifically, Nanometrics contends that none of OSI’s 25-micron lenses fit any definition of a
6
Small Spot Lens, and that the defined Small Spot Lenses do not contemplate 40-micron lenses. Id.
7
OSI has put forth evidence that Nanometrics referred to both OSI and competitor lenses as “small
8
spot lenses,” that Nanometrics changed the requisite small spot lens design without informing
9
OSI, and that Nanometrics sold instruments deploying a small spot lens. Exhs. GG, HH; Exh. J
10
(“Leon Dep. Tr.”) 89:9–18; Exh. Y (“Vedula Dep. Tr.”) 31:2–31:7). OSI has additionally
11
provided evidence that its sole owner sets his pricing and profit margins. Piccirillo Dep. Tr.
12
335:4–336:25. Upon such a showing, the Court finds that there exists a genuine dispute of fact as
13
to whether OSI has been damaged by Nanometrics’s use of another company as a supplier for the
14
optical lenses used in its products.
15
B.
16
“The elements of promissory estoppel are (1) a clear promise, (2) reliance, (3) substantial
Promissory Estoppel
17
detriment, and (4) damages.” Toscano v. Greene Music, 124 Cal. App. 4th 685, 692 (2004). At
18
the outset, Nanometrics argues that one or the other of OSI’s two claims must be dismissed
19
because breach of contract and promissory estoppel are mutually exclusive. Mot. 22. A claim for
20
promissory estoppel can only lie when an alleged promise lacks adequate consideration. See, e.g.,
21
Raedeke v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Ass’n, 10 Cal. 3d 665, 672 (1974) (“[T]he doctrine of
22
promissory estoppel is used to provide a substitute for the consideration which ordinarily is
23
required to create an enforceable promise.”). Because the Court has found only that OSI has
24
shown a genuinely disputed fact as to consideration—and not that there is in fact adequate
25
consideration, see Mot. 23—there is no basis to dismiss one of the claims at this stage due to
26
mutual exclusivity.
27
28
Nanometrics also argues that OSI cannot establish either a clear and unambiguous promise
or reliance damages. As noted previously, the Court has found the Agreement to contain a
8
1
conditional promise, i.e., that OSI could become Nanometrics’s exclusive supplier if it timely
2
delivered small spot lenses that met the design specifications. MTD Order 18–19; see Aguinaldo
3
v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 5:12-CV-01393-EJD, 2012 WL 3835080, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
4
Sept. 4, 2012) (finding plaintiff failed to plead promissory estoppel claim where claim was based
5
on conditional promise). However, for the reasons described above, OSI has provided sufficient
6
evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact as to whether it in fact met the condition for the
7
promise, such that its reliance on the exclusivity provision in the Agreement was reasonable. See
8
Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1031, 1045–46 (2010) (finding evidence of
9
satisfaction of condition for conditional promise sufficient to withstand summary adjudication of
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
promissory estoppel claim).
11
With respect to reliance damages, Nanometrics argues that OSI could not have reasonably
12
relied on the Agreement in making its capital expenditures for the specialized equipment because
13
OSI told Nanometrics that the equipment costs were not necessary for the completion of the
14
purchase order. Mot. 24 (citing, e.g., Exh. 16). OSI has in turn provided evidence that it incurred
15
the capital expenditures based on conversations with Nanometrics leading to the understanding
16
that OSI would complete not only the purchase order but future orders for ongoing production.
17
See, e.g., Piccirillo Dep. Tr. 174:11–177:23; OSI Leon Decl. ¶¶ 6, 12. The Court finds upon this
18
evidence that OSI has shown a genuine dispute of fact as to whether it reasonably relied on
19
promises of exclusivity in incurring its capital expenditure costs.
20
IV.
ORDER
21
The Court has identified some disputed facts, but does not suggest by this order that these
22
are the only factual contentions in dispute. Because there are genuine issues of material fact as to
23
each challenged element of OSI’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims,
24
Nanometrics’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 3, 2023
27
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
28
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?