Preview

Case Analysis: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. V. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
905 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Case Analysis: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. V. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation
Case Analysis: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation
Name: Po-Lin Chiang
MBA 511: Law for Global Business
Instructor: Robert Richards
Date: March 7, 2013 Abstract
Every trade act can cause many different issues. As a result, every company needs laws to protect their right when they are doing with other. In addition, every country has different law for these business acts. People need to deeply understand the causes and consequences of these problems, in order to avoid breaking the law during their business act. Here I’m going to analysis a case happened in the US District Court of Northern California. Background
In December 2003, A Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.’s (TSMC) terminated employee, a suspected who transferred the wafer processing of confidential information to Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC). SMIC was registered to conduct business in California; also TSMC had a subsidiary in the state. As a result, TSMC was sued SMIC in U.S. court because it was violated the trade secrets. In this pleading, TSMC was sued SMIC because SMIC was violated trade secrets’ improperly by the job-hopping employee. Also, TSMC was filed for an injunction sanction and indemnification (Mcguiness, 2008).
First of all, TSMC and SMIC were resolved those action in 2005 in a comprehensive settlement agreement. In this settlement agreement, SMIC should indemnify one hundred seventy-five million U.S. dollars to TSMC. Secondly, TSMC did not grant the right to use trade secrets for SMIC. TSMC agree with no longer prosecute about SMIC improper use of trade secrets. Then TSMC will revoke this litigation in the U.S. federal courts, the U.S. District Court in California, the United States International Trade Commission and the Hsinchu District Court. TSMC also remains a right of litigation if TSMC breach of contract (Clendenin, 2004).
Intellectual property rights
Taiwan



References: Clendenin, M. (2004). Analysis: background on TSMC, SMIC lawsuit. EE Times. Retrieved March 08, 2013, from http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/ 4120176/-b-Analysis--b-background-on-TSMC-SMIC-law Mcguiness, P.J. (2008). TSMC NORTH AMERICA v. SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. INTERN. CORP. Leagle. Retrieved March 08, 2013, from http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=200840274CalRptr3d328_1375.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR World Trade Organization, (2013) What are intellectual property rights? World Trade Organization. Retrieved March 08, 2013, from http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel1_e.htm

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Research shows that Mr. Jones is better off forming an S-corporation opposed to a partnership. 26 U.S. Code 1361 states that an S-corporation is a company that operates domestically within the United States as well as the state in which the Articles of Incorporation are filed. It is more beneficial to be a domestic corporation because home states offer opportunities to reinstate active status to corporations who lapse in registration and taxes. If Mr. Jones fails to pay his annual taxes on time, his S-corporation status can be reinstated after he squares away what he owes within a reasonable period of time. S-corporations are allowed to distribute one kind of stock, but they are limited to having 100 shareholders or less. Mr. Jones is eligible to start his used car dealership as an S-corporation because he is a resident…

    • 1139 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Defendant was terminated from the position of junior executive secretary at The Company upon the decision by The Company to downsize. The Defendant acquired confidential information upon her departure regarding the process for creating Ever-Gold; a patented process which is fundamental to The Company’s success. Shortly after, The Defendant became an employee for a competitor of The Company, Howell Jewelry World [hereby referred to as Howell]; where she willingly released unknown documents and trademark secrets. The Defendant was required to sign a confidentiality agreement which The Company claims has been violated.…

    • 1717 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Case Brief

    • 797 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Title of Case: Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC, Petitioner v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., et al. 128 S. Ct. 761 (2008)…

    • 797 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    FACTS: In 1995 William Brotby was hired by Computer Task Group, Inc. (CTG) as an information technologies consultant. Upon hiring, Brotby had to sign an agreement stating that he would be restricted to work for any CTG customers if he left the company. No more than two years later, Brotby left CTG and began to work for one of CTG’s customers known as Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. CTG, plaintiff, filed a suit against Brotby, defendant, in a federal district court alleging breach of contract. During the production of discovery, Brotby refused to fully respond to CTG’s interrogatories, never gave truthful answers, filed unwarranted motions, made flimsy objections, and never disclosed all of the information that CTG sought. Brotby was fined twice by the court and was issued five separate orders ordering him to cooperate. Because of Brothby’s continuous refusal to cooperate, CTG eventually filed a motion to enter default judgment against him in 1999. The court granted the motion; however, Brotby appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.…

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    S. Co. Inc. V.

    • 216 Words
    • 1 Page

    The court affirmed. Business income generated by S corporations flowed directly to appellants for taxation purposes and retained status as it passed to appellants. Appellants availed themselves of Ohio's benefits and opportunities by earning income through Subchapter S corporations. The S corporations' business activity removed appellants from immunity ((LINCCWeb Catalog Search, n.d.).…

    • 216 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The SEC’s Case against California Micro Devices: A Lesson in Using Professional Skepticism and Obtaining Sufficient Appropriate Evidence…

    • 2003 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    M International and W Inc. have been engaged in long-standing litigation over a specific patent infringement matter. Pertains to the accounting for this contingency loss, this memo has made the following conclusions:…

    • 1238 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Buffets v. Klinke

    • 3142 Words
    • 10 Pages

    OVERVIEW: The court affirmed judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(4), and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020, in an action involving plaintiff's restaurant recipes and job manuals. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff's recipes were not entitled to trade secret protection because they were readily ascertainable, lacked the requisite novelty, and had no independent economic value. In addition, plaintiff's restaurant job manuals were not trade secrets because they were not the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain their secrecy and had little economic value, notwithstanding the fact that defendants obtained them illegally. The court also affirmed…

    • 3142 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Bus Law203

    • 2307 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Maximum Possible Points: The maximum number of points you may earn for this assignment is 50.…

    • 2307 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    TCPA 227

    • 622 Words
    • 3 Pages

    This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s TCPA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Mims v. Arrow Fin. Ser., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 740 (2012).…

    • 622 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Business Law, Tort Law

    • 2260 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Giaschi, C. J. (2010). “Margaret Elizabeth No.1” et al., (June 10, 1997). Retrieved July 2, 2010 from http://www.admiraltylaw.com/personalinjury.html…

    • 2260 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Tyco Fraud

    • 1126 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In early 2006, a Commission filing over disclosures, accounting fraud and a FCPA injunctive action against Tyco was settled and led to the agreement of an overview of Tyco’s global organization. The investigation of the matter then led to the findings of the misconducts that Tyco is getting Charged for in this case.…

    • 1126 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Thompson, R. (2010). International trademark protection strategy. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 19 (1), p.479-496. Retrieved Nov 1 from Ebscohost Academic Search Complete.…

    • 7026 Words
    • 29 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Business Law I Case Study

    • 502 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The defendants, upon being hired by Russell, entered into contracts which contained three relevant covenants in this case; not to compete with the plaintiffs, not to solicit the plaintiff’ customers, and not to disclose the plaintiffs’ confidential information. The defendants, for many alleged reasons, separated themselves from the plaintiff and began working for a competitor, Red Bull New York, between August and November 2007. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were contradiction the covenants mentioned above because of his immediate drop in customers since the defendants left. The defendants claim that all of the information can be readily found on the internet and that they had not disclosed any confidential information. If the defendants were to be found guilty then the consequences would be an oppressive and unfair scenario. Therefore, the motion for preliminary injunction was denied in favor of the defendants.…

    • 502 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    LEG 500 Assignment 3

    • 3260 Words
    • 14 Pages

    Jain, S. C., & Bird, R. (2008). The Global Challenge of Intellectual Property Rights. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.…

    • 3260 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Better Essays