3 presented sufficient evidence that they otherwise have a probability of prevailing. We agree and reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The trade secrets at issue involve the manufacture of a type of microbolometer, which is a device for detecting infrared radiation, used in connection with infrared cameras, night vision and thermal imaging. Specifically, the case involves the manufacture of
less, vanadium oxide microbolometers.”
Former Employees were shareholders and officers of Indigo, which was in the microbolometer business. In 2004, FLIR acquired Indigo, acquiring, among other
things, Indigo’s intellectual property.
Former Employees continued to work for Indigo (and, therefore, FLIR). Former Employees left the employ of FLIR on January 6, 2006, when their contracts expired. In 2004, while working for FLIR, Former Employees had presented FLIR with a business plan involving outsourcing the manufacture of microbolometers. When they left FLIR, Former Employees embarked on a business plan for a new business which was, allegedly, similar to the business plan they had Due to the unavailability of the third member of the panel which heard this matter, this opinion is being filed with the concurrence of the two remaining members
of the panel. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 3 [“Concurrence of 2 judges present at the argument is necessary for a judgment”]; see, e.g.,
People v. Castellano
(1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 844, 862.)
The record on the instant appeal does not entirely explain these terms. It appears
that “TEC” refers to thermoelectric cooler, so the microbolometers in question operate
without thermoelectric cooling components which, it is assumed, makes them less expensive than microbolometers which are thermoelectrically cooled.