Dan Johnson Law Group represents United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC), one of the world’s leading semiconductor foundries, headquartered in Taiwan. On December 5, 2017, UMC was sued by Micron Technologies in the Northern District of California for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets relating to DRAM technology. In February 2018, Mr. Johnson’s team filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that Micron’s causes of action relate only to activities that took place in Taiwan, and the Court lacks jurisdiction in California. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order on April 23 finding that Micron’s initial allegations and pleadings had failed to establish a prima facie basis for jurisdiction and allowed limited jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing. The case was transferred to Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 13, 2018 after Judge White recused himself. The Court set a new hearing on the motion to dismiss for September 21, 2018. UMC is represented in this matter by Dan Johnson, Mario Moore, and Robert Litts.
Compuware sued IBM for theft of trade secrets and copyright infringement of Compuware’s diagnostic tools used in the main frame environment. IBM counterclaimed for patent infringement. IBM developed and released competing software tools in ten months. The same tools had taken Compuware 25 years to perfect. The IBM software development team was based in Perth Australia. The case was tried to a jury in Detroit Michigan over five weeks. Using sophisticated time in motion studies, animations, and IBM development documents, the case settled with consideration of $400 million.
The client O2 Micro was sued for patent infringement. O2 Micro filed a counter suit for trade secrets. At trial, Mr. Johnson’s team was able to establish that the patents were invalid based on disclosures found in a publically available textbook. The team was also able to show that the plaintiffs stole our client’s technology in order to try and maintain a competitive advantage. The jury invalidated the patents and awarded damages for the theft of the trade secrets. The case was affirmed on appeal.