Rose

I. BACKGROUND

1 A. Factual History 2 The following discussion of background facts is based on the allegations contained in the 3 SAC, the truth of which the Court accepts for purposes of resolving the Motions. See Boquist v. 4 Courtney, 32 F.4th 764, 772 (9th Cir. 2022). The core of Sylabs’ allegations remains unchanged 5 from its prior complaints. See Dkts. 59 at 1-4, 80 at 2. In brief, Sylabs created five technologies 6 for the high-performance-computing industry. See SAC ¶¶ 48-80. Wanting to fast-track their own 7 company in the industry, several Defendants who were then employed by Sylabs resigned, took 8 Sylabs’ non-public information from its servers, founded Defendant CTRL IQ, Inc. d/b/a/ CIQ 9 (“CIQ”), as a competitor company and patented technologies based on the information they had 10 obtained from Sylabs. See id. ¶¶ 92-155. Remaining Defendants invested in CIQ. See id. ¶¶ 31- 11 34. Sylabs subsequently commenced this action to recover for the harm it suffered as a result of 12 Defendants’ acts. 13 B. Procedural History 14 In its initial complaint, Sylabs asserted 11 causes of action, including trade-secret- 15 misappropriation and CFAA claims. See…