Display Research Laboratories, Inc. v. Telegen Corp.

Good Law

133 F. Supp. 2d 1170·2001 WL 243594·58 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1149·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4710

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 2001C00-4261SICalifornia3,310 words

Opinion

Illston, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN COUNTERCLAIMS IN FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCOMPLAINT

On February 2, 2001, the Court heard argument on plaintifflcounterdefendant’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Countercomplaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Defendant/counterclaimant Telegen Corporation (“Telegen”) is developing emissive flat panel displays based on technology involving High Gain Emissive Displays (“HGED”), Vacuum Fluorescent Displays (“VFD”), and active matrix VFDs (“AMVFD”). First Amended Counter-compl. ¶ 8. Telegen claims that it owns numerous technological improvements and inventions applicable to the displays. Id. at ¶ 10. Plaintiff/counterdefendants David Guo (“Guo”) and Edward Naugler (“Nau-gler”) were officers of Telegen and allegedly helped develop and had access to Telegen’s proprietary technology. Id. at ¶¶ 28-30. In or about March 1997, Guo and Naugler resigned from Telegen and subsequently established Display Research Laboratories, Inc. (“DRL”)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.