Kavcic v. Broadcom Inc.

Background

Aleksandar Kavcic and Broadcom disputed whether a consulting agreement limited Kavcic’s ability to act as a consultant and witness for a party adverse to Broadcom in a separate patent-infringement case, Carnegie Mellon University v. LSI Corp. et al., No. 18-cv-04571-JD. Kavcic had previously consulted for Broadcom in a different patent case involving Broadcom and the University of Minnesota. That earlier engagement was governed by the agreement at issue.

The agreement stated that Kavcic would not, without Broadcom’s written consent, assist another party seeking to manufacture, distribute, or sell products related to the subject matter of his engagement for Broadcom, or seeking to license intellectual-property rights associated with that technology.

Claims and Arguments

Kavcic sought summary judgment—a decision without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over a material fact—on his claim for declaratory relief concerning the agreement’s scope. He also sought summary judgment on Broadcom’s counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Broadcom opposed the motion.

The court had previously explained that the declaratory-relief claim should address the general restraints the agreement might impose on Kavcic’s role in the Carnegie Mellon case, rather than parse his proposed testimony sentence by sentence.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that summary judgment could not be granted on the disputed and underdeveloped record. The parties disagreed about basic factual matters, including what Kavcic actually did during his engagement in the University of Minnesota litigation and how that work might overlap with his engagement in the Carnegie Mellon litigation.

The parties also did not adequately address which state’s law should govern the agreement. Kavcic briefly discussed applying California law, while Broadcom stated that Texas law should apply, but neither side provided substantial legal analysis. The court noted that the issue could matter because California and Texas differ regarding the enforceability of covenants not to compete.

Disposition and Schedule

The court did not grant summary judgment. It set a trial on the claims and counterclaims for February 12, 2024, and a pretrial conference for February 1, 2024. The joint pretrial statement was required to explain which state law should apply and why, and whether laws governing non-compete clauses applied. The parties were also ordered to file a joint statement by December 23, 2023, addressing whether the trial would be before a jury or the court.