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
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page2of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page3of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page4of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page5of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page6of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page7of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page8of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page9of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page10of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page11of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page12of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page13of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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)).
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page14of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page15of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page16of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page17of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page18of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page19of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page20of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page21of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page22of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page23of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page24of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page25of26
7/28/2019 AMD v. Feldstein (D. Mass. May 15, 2013)
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.
Case4:13-cv-40007-TSH Document105 Filed05/15/13 Page26of26