United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
QUINTEL TECHNOLOGY, LTD. Plaintiff,
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., ET AL. Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Craven
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate
Judge in this action, this matter having been referred to the
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636. On December 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation, recommending Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment on Trade Secret Misappropriation,
Correction of Inventorship, and Fraud be granted in part and
denied in part (Dkt. #143). Specifically, the Magistrate
Judge recommended Quintel's correction of inventorship
claim be dismissed with prejudice. Otherwise, the Magistrate
Judge recommended Defendants' motion be denied. In the
Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge also denied
Defendants' Motion to Strike Michael A. Jensen's
Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition Brief to
Defendants' Summary Judgment on Trade Secret
Misappropriation, Correction of Inventorship, and Fraud (Dkt.
Technology Ltd. (“Quintel”) filed objections to
the part of the Report and Recommendation which recommends
dismissal of Quintel's correction of inventorship claim
against Defendants Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., FutureWei
Technologies, Inc., and Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
(collectively, “Huawei”), and Zhengxiang Ma
(together with Huawei, “Defendants”). Defendants
filed a response to Quintel's objections (Dkt. #238).
also filed objections to parts of the Report and
Recommendation. According to Defendants, Quintel's claims
for misappropriation of trade secrets and fraud should be
dismissed. Quintel filed a response to Defendants'
objections (Dkt. #235).
Court conducts a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's
findings and conclusions.
15, 2015, Quintel filed the above case against Defendants. In
its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed
December 1, 2015, Quintel asserted the following claims
against Defendants: (1) breach of contract; (2)
misappropriation of trade secrets; (3) unfair competition by
misappropriation; (4) common law fraud and fraud in the
inducement; (5) promissory estoppel; (6) unjust enrichment;
(7) accounting; and (8) correction of patent inventorship-35
U.S.C. § 256.
moved for summary judgment dismissing Quintel's claims
for misappropriation of trade secrets (Count II), fraud
(Count IV), and correction of inventorship (Count VIII).
Regarding Quintel's misappropriation of trade secret
claim, Defendants assert Quintel has alleged Defendants
misappropriated trade secrets in the form of the concept it
calls “Per User Tilt” (“PUT”),
certain simulation results showing how the concept performed,
and a block diagram sometimes referred to as a
“schematic.” According to Defendants, the alleged
trade secrets consist of a concept that was undisputedly
known prior to September 2009 when Quintel and Huawei began
their discussions, and the simulation results are certain
PowerPoint slides that Quintel provided to third
parties-before and after September 2009- without
confidentiality restrictions. Defendants contend the block
diagram/schematic was a simple diagram that Huawei did not
copy. Thus, Defendants assert the alleged trade secret
information was not secret, and there was no
Quintel's correction of inventorship claim, Defendants
assert summary judgment is warranted because the alleged
contribution of David Barker consists of the Per User Tilt
concept- which was in the public domain since at least 1999-
and there is no credible evidence of collaboration between
Mr. Barker and Dr. Ma as required. Finally, Defendants assert
Quintel's claim of fraud and fraud in the inducement
fails because there is no credible evidence to support the
essential elements of the claim.
December 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a 65-page
Report and Recommendation, recommending Defendants'
motion be granted as to Quintel's correction of
inventorship claim. Otherwise, the Magistrate Judge
recommended Defendants' motion be denied.
regard to Quintel's claim for misappropriation of trade
secrets, the Magistrate Judge found Quintel had presented
sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material
fact that the information at issue constituted trade secrets.
The Magistrate Judge also found sufficient evidence in the
record to create a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Defendants used Quintel's information without
authorization. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended
this part of Defendants' motion for summary judgment be
Magistrate Judge also recommended Defendants' motion for
summary judgment regarding Quintel's claim of fraud and
fraud in the inducement be denied, finding sufficient
evidence in the record to create a genuine issue of material
fact as to each element of fraud.
the Magistrate Judge recommended Quintel's claim of
correction of inventorship be dismissed. Assuming there is
sufficient evidence to determine that Mr. Baker conceived of
some significant portion of the invention, the Magistrate
Judge found insufficient evidence to satisfy the ...