Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corporation
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-05721
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Valeo Schalter v. NVIDIA, Judge DeMarchi granted NVIDIA’s motion to enforce the parties’ stipulated forensic protocol.
Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH and NVIDIA Corporation, which must cooperate in implementing the stipulated forensic protocol and share its examination expense as agreed.
What happened
In Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA asked the court to enforce a forensic protocol that the parties had voluntarily agreed to and the court had entered as an order. The protocol requires the parties to share equally the cost of a third-party examination of devices allegedly used to store Valeo’s trade-secret information.
Valeo argued that enforcement would effectively reopen discovery, delay the case, and prejudice Valeo by producing additional information after upcoming deadlines. The court rejected those objections, finding that the protocol imposed no substantial burden beyond costs Valeo had already agreed to pay and limited cooperation requirements. The court also said enforcement did not itself reopen discovery, permit use of the examination results for any particular purpose, or require changing the case schedule.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted NVIDIA’s motion to enforce the stipulated forensic protocol and ordered the parties to cooperate in carrying it out. The opinion does not decide whether information from the examination may later be used or whether the schedule should be extended.
The detailed version
- Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corporation · No. 5:23-cv-05721
- Virginia Demarchi
- July 17, 2025
Background
NVIDIA moved to enforce the parties’ Joint Forensic Protocol Stipulation. The court had entered that stipulation as an order on November 7, 2024. The parties had agreed to share equally the expense of a third-party forensic examination of devices that Mr. Moniruzzaman allegedly used to store Valeo’s trade-secret information. The devices were in the custody of German authorities.
Valeo’s objections
Valeo argued that enforcing the protocol would functionally reopen discovery, that the examination process would take too long and produce results after summary-judgment and expert-evidence motions, and that Valeo would be prejudiced by additional information and possible trial delay.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that enforcement was not “manifestly unjust.” It found that the protocol imposed no substantial burden on Valeo apart from its agreed share of the examination’s cost. The protocol requires Valeo to review source code identified by the forensic examiner and make relevant source code available for inspection if it has not already done so. The protocol permits, but does not require, additional source-code review or additional searches.
The court also explained that enforcing the order would not reopen fact or expert discovery. Enforcement did not establish that either party could use examination information for summary judgment, supplemental expert reports, or trial, and it did not require extending the case schedule. Those issues were left to the presiding judge. The court noted that neither party might be able to use information from the examination if the parties failed to cooperate promptly in implementing the protocol.
Disposition
The court granted NVIDIA’s motion to enforce the stipulated forensic protocol and ordered the parties to cooperate in complying with and implementing the order. The opinion also notes that Valeo filed an administrative motion concerning whether NVIDIA’s information should be sealed; the ruling does not decide that motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.