Access Optical Networks, Inc. v. Seagate Technology LLC

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ACCESS OPTICAL NETWORKS, INC., Case No. 24-cv-03745-EKL 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 121 Defendant. 11 12 13 Plaintiff Access Optical Networks, Inc. (“AON”) alleges that Defendant Seagate 14 Technology LLC (“Seagate”) misappropriated its trade secrets and breached the parties’ non- 15 disclosure agreements. Seagate moves for summary judgment on the basis that AON’s claims are 16 time-barred. Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 121 (“Motion”). The Court carefully reviewed the 17 briefs and heard argument on November 19, 2025. For the following reasons, the Motion is 18 GRANTED and AON’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 A. Factual Background 21 “AON is a data storage company that develops optical data storage products and network 22 access equipment.” Second Am. Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 39 (“Compl.”). AON has “dedicated over 23 two decades, thousands of employee hours and millions of dollars in research and development to 24 overcome the limitations of traditional data storage technology.” Id. ¶ 1. AON has innovated in 25 the field of Holographic Data Storage (“HDS”), “a revolutionary technology that uses precisely 26 controlled laser beams to store high volumes of digital data in three-dimensional photo-refractive 27 crystals.” Id. 1 Seagate is a technology company that has focused on developing “an alternative next- 2 generation storage system based on Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording (‘HAMR’) principles.” 3 Id. ¶ 2. HAMR “uses a combination of magnetic field and light to record information at a high 4 density in a recording medium.” Id. Both HDS and HAMR technology “require sophisticated 5 optical engineering capabilities in order to succeed.” Id. ¶ 3. 6 AON’s relationship with Seagate began in 2012. Id. ¶ 38. At the time, Seagate “led AON 7 to believe that it was interested in a potential collaboration or investment.” Id. ¶ 4. To facilitate 8 the partnership, the parties entered into a Master Non-Disclosure Agreement (“Master NDA”) and 9 two Supplemental Non-Disclosure Agreements (“Supplemental NDAs”). Id. ¶ 40. The Master 10 NDA provides general terms that apply to any disclosure of confidential information, and the 11 Supplemental NDAs define the scope of specific confidential information that the parties agreed to 12 exchange. 13 The Master NDA provides that the parties may use each other’s confidential information 14 solely “for the benefit of a potential business relationship between Seagate and [AON].” Compl. 15 Ex. D ¶ 5, ECF No. 39-4 (“Master NDA”). On July 23, 2012, the parties executed the First 16 Supplemental NDA, which covered confidential information disclosed between July 23, 2012, and 17 July 22, 2014. Compl. Ex. E ¶ 1, ECF No. 39-5 (“First Supplemental NDA”). The First 18 Supplemental NDA covered the following AON confidential information: “Business and 19 technical information related to Energy Assisted Magnetic Recording, recording heads, sliders, 20 and optical methods & components, including but not limited to: business & marketing plans, 21 designs, lasers, specifications, processes, manufacturing plans, manufacturing tooling, product 22 plans, research, test tools, test data, test processes, and materials.” Id. ¶ 2. Confidential 23 information disclosed pursuant to the First Supplemental NDA was subject to a confidentiality 24 period of five years from the date of disclosure. Id. ¶ 3.2. 25 On July 21, 2014, the parties executed the Second Supplemental NDA, which covered 26 confidential information disclosed between July 23, 2014 and July 22, 2017. Compl. Ex. F ¶ 1, 27 ECF No. 39-6 (“Second Supplemental NDA”). The Second Supplemental NDA covered the 1 Holographic Recording systems, devices, recording media, light modulators, light detectors, light 2 sources and light path control, including but not limited to: business & marketing plans, financial 3 information, designs, lasers, specifications, processes, manufacturing plans, manufacturing 4 tooling, product plans, research, test tools, test data, test processes, and materials.” Id. ¶ 2. 5 Confidential information disclosed pursuant to the Second Supplemental NDA was also subject to 6 a confidentiality period of five years from the date of disclosure. Id. ¶ 3.2. 7 AON claims that, between 2012 and 2015, at “Seagate’s insistence and encouragement, 8 AON provided extensive proprietary and confidential demonstrations as well as detailed 9 explanations of HDS and its photonic and optical systems to Seagate.” Compl. ¶ 5. According to 10 AON, Seagate was having difficulty mastering optical technology required to develop Seagate’s 11 HAMR data storage device. “AON, using the experience and expertise it had acquired from years 12 of optical data storage research and development, provided Seagate with valuable confidential and 13 trade secret information that addressed these optical challenges and problems Seagate was 14 experiencing.” Id. “AON also shared with Seagate confidential and trade secret information 15 regarding how optical properties of the light on the recording medium have an impact on both the 16 reliability and speed of the read/write process.” Id. ¶ 27. 17 Despite the parties’ early collaboration, “Seagate abruptly and unexpectedly stopped 18 communicating with AON and no business agreement was reached.” Id. ¶ 6. According to the 19 complaint, in 2018, AON learned that Seagate had “released a limited amount of HAMR drives 20 direct to enterprise customers for them to pilot.” Id. ¶ 53. “Based on AON’s years of experience 21 working with these technologies, as well as what it witnessed during visits to Seagate’s facilities, 22 AON suspected that Seagate could not have accelerated the development of its HAMR drives over 23 the 2016-2018 time period without in fact misusing the confidential and trade secret information 24 that AON had shared with Seagate between 2012-2015.” Id. 25 Suspicious of potential trade secret misappropriation, AON “engaged outside counsel to 26 write to Seagate in 2018, to have Seagate confirm that it was not using any AON confidential or 27 trade secret information.” Id. ¶ 54. On December 5, 2018, AON’s counsel wrote to Seagate: 1 concerns that Seagate’s HAMR product may use AON trade secret information.” Compl. Ex. A, 2 ECF No. 39-1. On January 9, 2019, Seagate’s counsel responded that it was “not aware of any use 3 of [AON’s] information by Seagate for products, development or any other purpose.” Compl. Ex. 4 B, ECF No. 39-2. On January 25, 2019, AON’s counsel sent Seagate another letter elaborating on 5 the confidential information AON had shared with Seagate and again requested a response from 6 Seagate. Compl. Ex. C, ECF No. 39-3. Seagate “seemingly ignored” this letter. Compl. ¶ 7. 7 AON also “made diligent efforts to obtain a copy of Seagate’s HAMR drive . . . but it was unable 8 to do so as the drives were released direct to a limited number of targeted enterprise customers 9 only and not to the general public.” Id. ¶ 54. 10 On May 17, 2024, AON initiated this action in Santa Clara County Superior Court. ECF 11 No. 1-1. On August 2, 2024, after the case was removed to federal court, AON amended the 12 complaint. AON asserts three causes of action: (1) misappropriation of trade secrets under the 13 California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq.); (2) misappropriation of 14 trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq.); and (3) breach of 15 contract under California law. 16 B. Procedural History 17 Earlier this year, the Court denied in relevant part Seagate’s motion to dismiss AON’s 18 claims as time barred. See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss in Part, ECF No. 38 (“MTD Order”). 19 The Court concluded that it was not clear from the face of the complaint that AON’s claims were 20 time-barred. Rather, AON plausibly alleged that its claims were timely because they accrued in 21 2021, when certain Seagate patents and patent applications were published. Compl. ¶¶ 55, 57-58, 22 61. The complaint alleged that these Seagate patent applications for the first time disclosed 23 HAMR features that “bear a striking resemblance to two AON trade secrets shared with Seagate 24 under the NDA in 2013,” and that the patent applications “reveal[ed]” to AON that Seagate 25 allegedly misappropriated its trade secrets. Id. ¶¶ 57, 61. 26 The Court held that, based on the allegations in the complaint, AON’s claims did not begin 27 to accrue in 2018, when it first developed suspicions of trade secret misappropriation. Drawing 1 conducted a reasonable investigation in 2018, and that despite its efforts, AON could not discover 2 a factual basis for its claims at that time. See MTD Order at 7. Because AON plausibly alleged 3 that it conducted a reasonable investigation in 2018 and could not discover a factual basis for its 4 claims, the delayed discovery rule applied, and AON’s claims did not accrue until 2021. 5 After the Court denied Seagate’s motion to dismiss, information learned in discovery shed 6 further light on AON’s suspicions of trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract in 2018. 7 See Joint Case Mgmt. Statement at 3-7, ECF No. 103. The Court granted Seagate’s request to file 8 a motion for summary judgment focused solely on whether AON’s claims are barred by the 9 applicable statutes of limitations. Min. Order, ECF No. 111. This Order resolves that motion. 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 A court may grant summary judgment on any issue, claim, or defense if there is “no 12 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the 14 outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is 15 genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 16 party.” Id. 17 The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine dispute 18 of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party may 19 satisfy this burden in different ways depending on whether it has the burden of proof at trial. If 20 the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, it must cite to “particular parts of materials in 21 the record” to demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the non-moving party. 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). By contrast, if the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at 23 trial, the moving party need only demonstrate that there is an absence of evidence to support the 24 non-moving party’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). 25 Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to 26 designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. 27 To carry this burden, the non-moving party must “do more than simply show that there is some 1 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non- 2 movant’s] position will be insufficient” to survive summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. 3 Instead, “there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving 4 party].” Id. 5 In determining whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact, the court must take “the 6 evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non- 7 moving party.” Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2011). The court does 8 not “engage in credibility determinations or weigh evidence.” Munden v. Stewart Tit. Guar. Co., 9 8 F.4th 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 2021). “The district court need not examine the entire file for 10 evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing 11 papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found.” Carmen v. San Francisco 12 Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). 13 At summary judgment, the focus is not “on the admissibility of the evidence’s form,” but 14 rather “on the admissibility of its contents.” Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 15 2003). “To survive summary judgment, a party does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a 16 form that would be admissible at trial, as long as the party satisfies the requirements of Federal 17 Rule of Civil Procedure 56.” Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2001). 18 An affidavit or declaration “must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be 19 admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters 20 stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 Seagate argues that AON’s claims are untimely as they accrued no later than 2018, when 23 AON developed a firm conviction that Seagate misappropriated its trade secrets and breached the 24 parties’ non-disclosure agreements. Based on the undisputed facts, the Court agrees that AON’s 25 claims are untimely. The Court also concludes that neither the delayed discovery rule nor the 26 doctrine of fraudulent concealment delayed or tolled the limitations periods. Accordingly, there is 27 no genuine dispute of material fact that AON’s claims are time-barred, and Seagate is entitled to 1 A. AON’s Claims Accrued No Later Than December 5, 2018. 2 AON’s trade secret claims are subject to a three-year limitations period. 18 U.S.C. 3 § 1836(d) (providing three-year period for claims brought under the Defend Trade Secrets Act); 4 Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.6 (providing the same for claims brought under the California Uniform 5 Trade Secrets Act). AON’s breach of contract claim is subject to a four-year limitations period. 6 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(a). These periods were suspended for 180 days, from April 6, 2020, 7 until October 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cal. R. Ct. App. I Emergency Rule 9. 8 AON filed the original complaint in this action on May 17, 2024. ECF No. 1-1. Accordingly, 9 AON’s trade secret misappropriation claims are time-barred if they accrued before November 18, 10 2020, and the breach of contract claim is time-barred if it accrued before November 19, 2019. 11 The undisputed facts demonstrate that AON’s claims accrued no later than 2018, well 12 outside of the limitations period.1 On April 27, 2018, Glenn Gladney – AON’s president and chief 13 executive officer – sent an email to AON’s board of directors detailing his conviction that Seagate 14 had misappropriated AON’s trade secrets. Fact Nos. 1-3; see also Linderman Decl. Ex. B, ECF 15 No. 121-3 (“Gladney Email”). In the email, Gladney explains that he had recently heard from a 16 lens supplier that Seagate was “purchasing a lot of ‘glass’ which indicated the development of a 17 holographic data storage project.” Gladney Email at AON_00002850. Gladney “immediately 18 searched the patent office application filings and located” a Seagate patent application that, to 19 Gladney, was “a clear indication of holographic data storage research and development.” Id. 20 More precisely, the application reflected “volumetric holography using 90 degree angle 21 multiplexing,” which only AON was working to commercialize at the time. Id. 22 After discovering this information, Gladney called Dave Aune, a former Seagate employee 23 who previously reported to Seagate’s chief technical officer. Id. Aune had been one of the 24 “principal Seagate recipients” of the alleged trade secrets that AON had shared in meetings and 25 correspondence between July 2012 and May 2015. Interrogatory Resp. at 8-9, ECF No. 151; see 26 1 This Order relies exclusively on undisputed facts. See Combined Separate Statement, ECF 27 No. 138. Citations to “Fact No.” reference the undisputed facts proffered by Seagate. Although 1 also Linderman Decl. Ex. I (summarizing Gladney’s alleged disclosures of AON trade secrets to 2 Aune). During the call, Aune reportedly agreed with Gladney that the focus of Seagate’s patent 3 application “was a problem,” and he encouraged Gladney to “contact Seagate and let them know 4 that [it] is a problem.” Gladney Email at AON_00002850. 5 Based on his research into Seagate’s patent application and his call with Seagate’s former 6 employee, Gladney developed a strong conviction that Seagate had crossed a legal boundary. The 7 following excerpts of the April 27, 2018 email reflect Gladney’s convictions: 8 I believe Seagate fraudulently misrepresented their interest to invest in AON and collaborate on the development to commercialize holographic data storage in 9 meetings and negotiations during 2014. Seagate requested proprietary information 10 and trade secrets with the intent to defraud AON and has misappropriated [AON’s] technologies. If Seagate were to commercialize a product they would infringe our 11 patents. However, due to the fraud and other actions it is appropriate not to wait for 12 Seagate to introduce a product before considering legal action. 13 Seagate started negotiations in 2014 dangling the possibility of funding AON’s holographic data storage product commercialization and providing co-development 14 support such as image post processing. Seagate continued to reduce the amount of 15 funding and structure of the deal until their last offer which was $2 million dollars for the right to make and [sell] AON’s holographic data storage with no future 16 investments, royalties, and/or payments. Of course, Seagate knew that was a totally unacceptable offer. But, evidently, feeling they had pilfered us for enough 17 information to proceed to develop our product themselves AON’s rejection of their 18 offer did not matter! 19 Gladney Email at AON_00002852; Fact No. 3. Two days later, one of AON’s board members 20 reacted: “Clearly a breach of agreement.” Fact No. 4; Linderman Decl. Ex. C at AON_00003318. 21 Gladney’s email set in motion AON’s early attempts to stop Seagate’s alleged 22 misappropriation through legal action. On April 30, 2018, Frank Miles – AON’s chief financial 23 officer – forwarded Gladney’s email to contacts at Goldman Sachs, requesting their “help in 24 identifying corporate legal counsel to work immediately and closely with AON.” Fact No. 5; 25 Linderman Decl. Ex. D at AON_00003275. Miles explained that Gladney and “several of 26 [AON’s] key [board] members/senior technical staff” had concluded that “Seagate technologically 27 infringed on AON’s IP trade secrets.” Id. In further correspondence with Goldman Sachs on May The Seagate patent not only infringes on the existing patent(s) owned and licensed 1 by AON it also includes information communicated to Seagate during briefings, 2 meetings, and materials provided as updates, such as the use of the lasers to change the phase, polarization, wavelength, intensity and other characteristics of the stored 3 locations. . . . So, the point is there are some cases where the patents are clearly infringe[d] and other cases where information gained from AON during meetings and 4 discussions have been included as well. 5 AON is viewing this as a breach of agreement, fraud, and other violations in addition 6 to patent infringement. Our goals include, where possible, stopping the Seagate holographic data storage product development and patent applications prior to the 7 completion of a commercial product. 8 Fact No. 6; Linderman Decl. Ex. F at AON_00003330. 9 On May 15, 2018, Gladney provided an update to AON’s board of directors. Gladney 10 explained that the company was taking action in response to Seagate’s attempt to commercialize a 11 holographic data storage product, “which we believe will be shown to have breeched [sic] an 12 agreement with AON and utilized our Intellectual Property (IP), trade secrets, design(s), business 13 plans, and customer information[.]” Fact No. 8; Linderman Decl. Ex. F at AON_00003332. 14 Gladney explained that AON had engaged the law firm Ropes & Gray LLP “to prosecute this 15 claim against Seagate.” Id. Ultimately, on December 5, 2018, Ropes & Gray sent a letter to 16 Seagate on behalf of AON expressing “concerns that Seagate’s HAMR product may use AON 17 trade secret information.” Fact No. 9; Linderman Ex. G. Seagate denied this accusation, then 18 ignored follow-up correspondence from Ropes & Gray sent on January 25, 2019. Fact Nos. 10- 19 12. AON did not bring this action until May 17, 2024. Fact No. 13; ECF No. 1-1. 20 Here, based on the undisputed facts summarized above, there is no triable issue that AON 21 learned all the information it needed to pursue its claims by December 5, 2018, if not earlier. See 22 Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal. 3d 1103, 1111 (1988) (in bank) (“A plaintiff is held to her actual 23 knowledge as well as knowledge that could reasonably be discovered through investigation of 24 sources open to her.”). The statute of limitations began to run once AON discovered Seagate’s 25 alleged misconduct, or when AON should have discovered such misconduct by the exercise of 26 reasonable diligence. Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 215, 223 (2002); see 27 also Gabriel Techs. Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 857 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1010 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (“[A] 1 the exercise of reasonable diligence, all of the facts essential to his cause of action.’” (citation 2 omitted)). 3 By December 5, 2018, AON’s chief executive officer and other members of the company’s 4 senior leadership team held firm convictions – based on Gladney’s investigation – that Seagate 5 breached the parties’ non-disclosure agreements and misappropriated AON’s trade secrets. 6 Gladney and several others at AON described the misappropriation and breach as “clear” based on 7 the evidence available to AON in 2018. See Fact Nos. 4, 6. Gladney was well-positioned to 8 determine whether Seagate’s patent application revealed a factual basis for wrongdoing and injury 9 to AON. Gladney was the “principal discloser of AON’s trade secrets” to Seagate, and “a direct 10 participant in technical exchanges, site visits, and disclosures to Seagate.” Interrogatory Resp. at 11 8-9, 15. Moreover, in 2018, AON had already ruled out the possibility that Seagate’s rapid 12 product development was the result of Seagate’s independent innovation. As stated in its 13 interrogatory responses, AON saw no plausible innocent explanation for Seagate’s conduct: 14 In 2018, Seagate released pilot HAMR drives and made public statements that demonstrated the incorporation of sophisticated optical subsystems which, upon 15 information and belief, could not have been developed without the use of AON’s confidential information. AON, through its own technical expertise and review of 16 public information, determined that Seagate’s progress was attributable to the 17 misappropriation of AON’s trade secrets. 18 Interrogatory Resp. at 14-15. Therefore, unless another doctrine applies to delay accrual of 19 AON’s claims, or to toll the statute of limitations, AON’s claims are time-barred.2 20 B. The Limitations Periods Were Neither Delayed Nor Tolled. 21 AON invokes the delayed discovery rule and the fraudulent concealment doctrine to render 22 its claims timely. Neither doctrine saves AON’s claims in this case. 23 1. The Delayed Discovery Rule 24 Under the delayed discovery rule, “a cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations 25 begins to run when the plaintiff has reason to suspect an injury and some wrongful cause, unless 26 the plaintiff pleads and proves that a reasonable investigation at that time would not have revealed 27 1 a factual basis for that particular cause of action.” Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 2 797, 803 (2005). In Fox, the Supreme Court of California explained: 3 Simply put, in order to employ the discovery rule to delay accrual of a cause of action, a potential plaintiff who suspects that an injury has been wrongfully caused must 4 conduct a reasonable investigation of all potential causes of that injury. If such an 5 investigation would have disclosed a factual basis for a cause of action, the statute of limitations begins to run on that cause of action when the investigation would have 6 brought such information to light. In order to adequately allege facts supporting a 7 theory of delayed discovery, the plaintiff must plead that, despite diligent investigation of the circumstances of the injury, he or she could not have reasonably 8 discovered facts supporting the cause of action within the applicable statute of limitations period. 9 10 Id. at 808-09. As the party invoking the delayed discovery rule, it is AON’s burden to “show 11 (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite 12 reasonable diligence.” Id. at 808 (quoting McKelvey v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 74 Cal. App. 4th 151, 13 160 (1999)); see also Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc., 40 F. Supp. 3d 1202, 1218 (N.D. Cal. 2014). 14 Here, the undisputed facts preclude application of the delayed discovery rule. By 15 December 5, 2018, AON had already conducted an investigation and developed the belief – based 16 on then-available evidence – that it had claims against Seagate for trade secret misappropriation 17 and breach of contract. AON decided to pursue those claims at that time, hired legal counsel, and 18 confronted Seagate. AON argues that it could not definitively prove its claims because Seagate 19 refused to provide a copy of its HAMR product. See Opp. at 6, ECF No. 133-2 (“AON attempted 20 to conduct its own independent investigation but was unable to procure a HAMR before filing its 21 complaint.”). But a plaintiff may not delay in filing suit once it has discovered a factual basis for 22 the claims, solely on the ground that definitive proof is not yet available. Jolly, 44 Cal. 3d at 1111 23 (“A plaintiff need not be aware of the specific ‘facts’ necessary to establish the claim; that is a 24 process contemplated by pretrial discovery.”); see also Wolf v. Travolta, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1077, 25 1103 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (“[T]he fact that [plaintiff’s] ‘independent investigation’ purportedly 26 produced no ‘direct or circumstantial evidence proving’ [defendant’s] wrongdoing does not justify 27 tolling of the relevant statutes of limitation.”). In any event, AON has not produced any evidence 1 Gladney opined in April 2018 that “it is appropriate not to wait for Seagate to introduce a product 2 before considering legal action.” Fact No. 3. 3 2. The Fraudulent Concealment Doctrine 4 The doctrine of fraudulent concealment is also inapposite based on the undisputed facts of 5 this case. The doctrine delays or tolls the statute of limitations when a defendant engages in fraud 6 that prevents the plaintiff from discovering the factual basis of its potential claims. See, e.g., El 7 Pollo Loco, Inc. v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that defendant’s 8 “misrepresentations and forgery hindered [plaintiff’s] discovery of the breach”). The plaintiff 9 bears the burden of showing that the defendant “actively misled” the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff 10 “had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the facts constituting [its] cause of action 11 despite [its] due diligence.” Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506, 514 (9th Cir. 1996); Weatherly v. 12 Universal Music Publ’g Grp., 125 Cal. App. 4th 913, 919 (2004) (“[A] defendant cannot hinder 13 the plaintiff’s discovery through misrepresentations and then fault the plaintiff for failing to 14 investigate.”). The undisputed facts demonstrate that neither element is met. 15 First, the fraudulent concealment doctrine does not apply because AON had actual 16 knowledge of the factual basis for its misappropriation and breach of contract claims by the time it 17 confronted Seagate on December 5, 2018. By this time, AON had evidence from at least four 18 sources – Gladney’s own knowledge, statements from a lens supplier, Seagate’s patent 19 application, and a former Seagate employee – that specific misconduct had occurred, and that 20 Seagate was responsible. Armed with sufficient evidence to bring its claims, AON needed to 21 “decide whether to file suit or sit on [its] rights.” Jolly, 44 Cal. 3d at 1111; see also Noland v. 22 Chua, 816 F. App’x 202, 203-04 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Because [plaintiff] had sufficient knowledge to 23 file his RICO claims before learning of the allegedly concealed facts, he cannot establish” 24 fraudulent concealment.); MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1110 25 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (holding that where plaintiff has “actual knowledge of purported misconduct (or 26 at least knowledge sufficient for Rule 11’s pleading requirements), the doctrine of fraudulent 27 concealment is inapplicable”). 1 Second, there is no evidence that Seagate actively misled AON. Seagate’s mere denial of 2 wrongdoing in its January 9, 2019 letter is insufficient. Grimmett, 75 F.3d at 515 (“A failure to 3 ‘own up’ does not constitute active concealment.”). At the motion hearing, AON emphasized that 4 Seagate affirmatively represented that “Seagate’s HAMR technology is based on decades of 5 research and the significant amount of independent IP and knowledge [Seagate has] developed in 6 HAMR.” Linderman Decl. Ex. H. However, even if this statement is distinguishable from a mere 7 denial of wrongdoing, there is no evidence that Seagate’s assertion misled AON. Grimmett, 75 8 F.3d at 514 (holding that plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that defendant “actively misled” 9 plaintiff). When AON confronted Seagate in December 2018 and January 2019, AON had already 10 concluded that Seagate’s product “could not have been developed without the use of AON’s 11 confidential information.” Interrogatory Resp. at 14-15; see also Compl. ¶ 53. AON has not 12 produced any evidence that Seagate’s denials caused AON to doubt the factual basis that it had 13 already discovered for its claims. To the contrary, after Seagate’s denial, AON continued to assert 14 that Seagate misappropriated AON’s trade secrets. Linderman Decl. Ex. I; cf. Bergstein v. Stroock 15 & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 236 Cal. App. 4th 793, 820 (2015) (“[A]s shown by plaintiffs’ . . . letter 16 responding to [defendant’s] denial it received confidential information, plaintiffs did not believe 17 these denials, and cannot rely on them now to create an estoppel.”).3 18 In sum, AON’s claims accrued no later than December 5, 2018. The limitations periods 19 were neither delayed nor tolled. Therefore, AON’s claims are time-barred, and Seagate is entitled 20 to judgment as a matter of law.4 21 22 3 At the hearing, AON cited additional authority for its fraudulent concealment argument. Both cases are inapposite because the fraudulent concealment doctrine was applied at the pleading 23 stage, where facts are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. RA Med. Sys. Inc. v. PhotoMedex, Inc., 373 F. App’x 784, 786-87 (9th Cir. 2010); Low v. SDI Vendome S.A., No. CV 24 02-5983 AHM (CWx), 2003 WL 25678880, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2003) (“[T]he reasonableness of Plaintiff’s reliance and the reasonable diligence of his inquiry are questions of fact not 25 susceptible to resolution on a motion to dismiss.”). Here, at summary judgment, it is AON’s burden to produce some evidence of fraudulent concealment, and it has not done so. 26 4 AON also argues that the MTD Order dooms Seagate’s motion. But at the pleading stage, the Court considered only the facts alleged in the complaint. Dismissal was not appropriate because 27 the expiration of the limitations periods was not “apparent from the face of the complaint.” In re 1 C. Seagate’s Counterclaims are Dismissed as Moot. 2 In its answer, Seagate asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of inventorship of 3 U.S. Patent Nos. 11,380,354; 11,328,745; and 11,011,203. See Answer at 48-56, ECF No. 44. 4 || Seagate alleged that, “[b]y clearly challenging the inventorship of Seagate’s patents in its 5 [complaint], therefore, AON created an actual, justiciable controversy concerning the inventorship 6 of the patents.” Jd. at 51, 53-54, 56. Prior to the motion hearing, the Court ordered the parties to 7 || meet and confer regarding whether Seagate’s counterclaims would be rendered moot if the Court 8 || grants Seagate’s motion for summary judgment.> At the hearing, the parties agreed that Seagate’s 9 || counterclaims should be dismissed as moot if the Court grants Seagate’s motion and dismisses 10 || AON’s claims. The parties then filed a joint stipulation to this effect, providing that “Seagate’s 11 counterclaims are moot if the Court grants Seagate’s” motion for summary judgment. Stip. at 1, = 12 || 155; id. (requesting that the Court “dismiss Seagate’s counterclaims as moot”). The 13 Court agrees that Seagate’s counterclaims are moot due to the dismissal of AON’s claims with 14 || prejudice, which extinguishes any actual controversy between the parties. Accordingly, Seagate’s 15 counterclaims are DISMISSED, without leave to amend, as moot. a 16 || Iv. CONCLUSION = 17 For the foregoing reasons, Seagate’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. All 18 claims asserted by AON are DISMISSED with prejudice. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, 19 Seagate’s counterclaims are DISMISSED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: November 21, 2025 Eumi K. Lee 22 United States District Judge 23 24 | s “[JJust like suits for every other type of remedy, declaratory-judgment actions must satisfy 25 Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.” California v. Texas, 593 U.S. 659, 672 (2021). A justiciable case or controversy exists for purpose of declaratory relief if “the facts alleged, under 26 all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory 97 || Judgment.” MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007) (quoting Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941)). A case becomes “moot if the dispute 28 ‘is no longer embedded in any actual controversy about the plaintiffs’ particular legal rights.’” Already, LLC y. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (citation omitted).