VLIW Technology, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

840 A.2d 606 (Del. 2003) · Supreme Court of Delaware · December 19, 2003 · No. No. 305, 2003

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court reversed dismissal of VLIW Technology’s claims against Hewlett-Packard and STMicroelectronics involving alleged breach of a technology license agreement, trade-secret misuse, and unfair trade practices. The court held that the complaint satisfied Delaware’s notice-pleading standard and that ambiguous contractual provisions concerning confidentiality and use in Hewlett-Packard products could not be resolved against the plaintiff on a motion to dismiss. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. The complaint adequately stated a breach-of-contract claim because it alleged the existence of a contract, breach of an obligation imposed by that contract through unauthorized sharing and use of licensed technology, and resulting damages.
  2. Dismissal was improper because the agreement's five-year confidentiality provision was reasonably susceptible to an interpretation under which a lesser confidentiality obligation continued after the heightened five-year obligation expired.
  3. The complaint adequately alleged a breach of the provision limiting use of the licensed technology to H-P products because the agreement did not define H-P products and the allegations and attached exhibit reasonably supported an inference that the technology was used in a product bearing an ST designation rather than solely an H-P designation.
  4. The trade-secret and unfair-trade-practice claims were reinstated because the Court of Chancery dismissed them on the premise that the breach-of-contract claim failed, and that premise was erroneous.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether VLIW's complaint adequately alleged the existence of a contract, breach of contractual obligations, and resulting damages.
  2. Whether the contractual confidentiality and Hewlett-Packard-product provisions were sufficiently ambiguous that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was improper.
  3. Whether VLIW's trade-secret and unfair-trade-practice claims should be reinstated after reversal of dismissal of the contract claim.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (16)

  • In re Santa Fe Pac. Corp. Shareholder Litig., 669 A.2d 59, 69-70 (Del. 1995)(followed)
  • McMullin v. Beran, 765 A.2d 910, 916 (Del. 2000)(followed)
  • In re Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. Litig., 634 A.2d 319, 326 (Del. 1993)(followed)
  • Vanderbilt Income and Growth Assocs. v. Arvida/JMB Managers, Inc., 691 A.2d 609, 612-13 (Del. 1996)(followed)
  • Precision Air, Inc. v. Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc., 654 A.2d 403, 406 (Del. 1995)(followed)
  • Kofron v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 441 A.2d 226, 227 (Del. 1982)(followed)
  • Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894 (Del. 2002)(followed)
  • Michelson v. Duncan, 407 A.2d 211, 217 (Del. 1979)(followed)
  • Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)(followed)
  • Klein v. Sunbeam Corp., 94 A.2d 385, 391 (Del. 1952)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…