Hooked Media v Apple

0.. ...J ...J 0: ,..

1- 0;::: 0(') u.. .J ' u...-0 Q ,.. z ,.. Nv a: t'l Ol

u 0: ~ (/) w z ~ z ~ 0: u:<(wf( u.. u :::i omoq: s 0: u ::ictJl!io <tu

UUJ z ~c::; <(r:oZ 2<{ ~wff: wz wzq: OO(J)

-(f)

1 ZACHARY J. ALINDER (State Bar No. 209009) Email: zalinder@sideman. com

2 PETER M. COLOSI (State Bar No. 252951) Email: pcolosi@sideman. com

3 ELLEN P. LIU (State Bar No. 280459) Email: [email protected]

4 SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP One Embarcadero Center, Twenty-Second Floor

5 San Francisco, California 94111-3711 Telephone: (415) 392-1960

6 Facsimile: (415) 392-0827

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Hooked Media Group, Inc.

8

9

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HOOKED MEDIA GROUP, INC., CASE No.1 4 c V 2 6 5 8 1 Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE, INC., CHANDRASEKAR VENKATARAMAN, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

1

COMPLMNTFORDAMAGESAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR:

1. MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS;

2. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT; 3. INTERFERENCE WITH

PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE;

4. FRAUD; 5. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; 6. VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA

COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT;

7. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; 8. MDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF

FIDUCIARY DUTY; 9. BREACH OF CONTRACT; 10. UNJUST ENRICHMENT/

RESTITUTION; and, 11. STATUTORY UNFAIR BUSINESS

PRACTICES.

Demand for Jury Trial

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

()_ _.J

_.Ja:~

1-o;::: 0(') LL ..J I

u.~

0 D ~ z ~

N<:t a:"'m ci<l: (}) u UJ z

~ z ~a: u:::<{wt2 u. u :J o en o o:~: s ffi u ~ctJ06 <t:u

U(IJ

z ~u <{wz

~<I: ~w[ wz wzo:~: 00(})

(/)

1 Plaintiff Hooked Media Group, Inc. ("Hooked Media"), for its Complaint against

2 Defendants Apple Inc. ("Apple"), Chandrasekar "Chandru" Venkataraman ("Mr. Venkataraman"

3 or "Venkataraman"), and Does 1 through 20, inclusive (collectively referred to as "Defendants"),

4 complains and alleges as follows:

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

INTRODUCTION

1. This case is about the willful theft of intellectual property and the reckless

destruction of a promising young company from the inside-out by Apple and Hooked Media's

former CTO, Mr. Venkataraman. During months of intense acquisition negotiations between

Apple and Hooked Media, Apple and Mr. Venkataraman conspired to and succeeded in stealing

Hooked Media's most vital trade secrets, sabotaging Hooked Media's business, and raiding

Hooked Media's core engineering team. Mr. V enkataraman capped off the scheme by leaving for

Apple in the middle of the night, taking copies of Hooked Media's intellectual property with him,

and deleting and/or otherwise removing computer files from Hooked Media's computer systems

that were essential for Hooked Media to operate and to continue to do business with competitors

of Apple, like HTC. When Hooked Media confronted Apple in the immediate aftermath,

questioning how it could engage in such egregious behavior, the acquisition lead for Apple stated

flatly that he was just following his orders and that "Apple is going to do what Apple is going to

do," i.e. without any regard for the fact that these actions destroyed Hooked Media.

2. Hooked Media had until that time enjoyed a rapid rise at the leading edge of the

application ("app") search, discovery, and recommendation space. With the proliferation of apps

across mobile platforms, it is not surprising that app search, discovery and recommendations have

become very valuable market space. Hooked Media is a venture-backed company, located in San

Francisco, that developed an innovative app discovery and monetization platform, that gives users

customized recommendations of apps they will find most rewarding. Hooked Media's

recommendation engine employs proprietary machine learning technology to yield the best

26 possible results.

27 3. By the end of2013, Hooked Media's business was generating a million dollars in

28 revenue each month and pending contracts were set to multiply that in 2014. Hooked Media was

2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 not only succeeding in the marketplace, but also had drawn significant attention in the press for its

2 innovative technologies, including a November 12, 2012 story on AllThingsD and a May 23, 2013

3 story in V entureBeat entitled, "Hooked Media turns in an entirely new take on app

4 recommendation- one that Apple can't kill." As detailed in this Complaint, Apple appears to

5 have taken this VentureBeat title as a challenge.

6 4. In sum, Apple and Mr. V enkataraman decided to cut Hooked Media out of its own

7 acquisition, take its intellectual property, and destroy its ability to even service its own customers

8 to complete the circle. Through this Complaint, Hooked Media seeks to recover for the willful

9 and malicious damages, theft, interference, and other harm caused by Apple and Mr.

10 V enkataraman.

11

12 5.

PARTIES

Hooked Media is and was at all relevant times a venture-backed California

13 company that used to have its principal place of business at 115 Sansome Street, San Francisco,

14 CA 94104. Due to the actions alleged in this Complaint, Hooked Media has since been required to

15 move to new offices in San Francisco.

16 6. Apple is and was at all relevant times a California corporation with its principal

17 place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California.

18 7. Mr. Venkataraman is and was at all relevant times an individual with his principal

19 residence in Palo Alto, California and is currently an employee of Apple.

20 8. At all times relevant to this action, each defendant, including those fictitiously

21 named, was the agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, accomplice, conspirator, alter

22 ego or surety of the other defendants and was acting within the scope of such capacity or

23 capacities with the knowledge and consent or ratification of each of the other defendants in doing

24 the things alleged in this Complaint. As such, Hooked Media alleges and refers in this Complaint

25 to two or more defendants acting in concert together, as "Defendants."

26

27 9.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants have

28 transacted business and have caused injury to Hooked Media within Santa Clara County,


a.. ...J ...Jo::~ f-o;::: Ocry u.. ...J I

u..~

0 0 ~ z ~

N'<f" O:NOJ

0::<( ()) u wz: l1J z 1- 0:: u z 0 u: <J: l1J lL lL u ::J OOJO<( s ffi ~ ::ictJOO <(u

0())

z~u <J:mZ

~<( ~wff: wz UJZ<( 00())

(j)

1 California.

2 10. Venue for this action properly lies in Santa Clara County pursuant to pursuant to

3 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 395(a) because Defendants committed acts in furtherance of their scheme

4 within this county and are located in this county.

5

6

7 11.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

HOOKED MEDIA GROUP AND ITS TECHNOLOGY

Hooked Media was founded in 2008 by Hooked Media Chief Executive Officer

9

10

11

8 Prita Uppal.1 As described above, Hooked Media provides an app discovery and monetization

platform that includes, among other things, a mobile game discovery app that gives users

customized recommendations of games they will find most rewarding. Hooked Media's

proprietary machine learning technology is groundbreaking.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. By the summer of2013, Hooked Media was bringing in around $250,000 a month.

By the end of 2013, Hooked Media's revenues were approximately $1 million per month. Hooked

Media had also executed a contract with HTC in early 2013 that would be worth millions of

dollars per month of recurring revenue and was in the process of building the product it had

committed to provide to HTC. In addition, Hooked Media had a signature-ready contract with

Deutsche Telekom that was projected to bring in over $20 million a year, as Hooked Media had

already begun building out this product for Deutsche Telekom in late 2013. In addition, Hooked

Media was in serious negotiations to provide services to a number of other prospective customers,

including Amazon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint, and Samsung.

13. One of Hooked Media's first employees, and its first in the technology area, was

Mr. Venkataraman, who joined in April2008 and served as its Chief Technology Officer. For

more than five years, he and Ms. Uppal worked side-by-side to build Hooked Media from the

ground up, and, as a result, had developed an extremely close and trusting relationship. Mr.

Venkataraman was the principal architect of Hooked Media products and also set up and oversaw

1 As Mr. Venkataraman is aware, the company formally changed its name from Gamook, Inc. to Hooked Media Group, Inc. in 2009.


0.. ...J ...Ja:,... 1-o;::: OC'l LL ...J I u...-Q a ,... z ,.-

N«t a: (\j OJ ci<(

UJUwz wzf-a: u z 0 u:: <{ w ll.. ll.. u :::i 0(00<( s ffi c: ::) dJ 0 0 <t:u

UUJ z ~ u <{Ill z

~<( ~wff:

wz wz<( OOUJ

(j)

1 Hooked Media's internal information technology during the entire time he worked there. As a

2 result, Mr. Venkataraman made himself the administrator of Hooked Media's computer systems,

3 including but not limited to, its email servers, virtual private networks, and Github cloud storage

4 accounts.

5 14. In addition to Mr. Venkataraman, Hooked Media's two lead engineers on its app

6 discovery platform were Daniel Cartoon and Paul Irvine, who both previously worked with Mr.

7 Venkataraman.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

APPLE STARTS ACQUISITION DISCUSSIONS WITH HOOKED MEDIA

15. In May 2013, Apple and Hooked Media began discussing a possible acquisition of

Hooked Media by Apple. On or about June 4, 2013, Ms. Uppal met with Ben Keighran at Apple

to discuss the potential acquisition at a high level. Hooked Media is informed and believes, and

thereon alleges, that Mr. Keighran is a director at Apple, and at the time worked on corporate

development and acquisitions. Before joining Apple, Mr. Keighran was the CEO of Chomp, Inc.,

a company that had recently been acquired by Apple reportedly for approximately $50 million.

The acquisition of Chomp was expected to help solve the problems that Apple had with app search

and discovery on its App Store. But, as a recent Macworld article by Michael Simon articulated,

"when Chomp was fully implemented with iOS 6, it not only didn't live up to expectations, it

made things worse." Not surprisingly, it was clear from Ms. Uppal's initial discussion with Mr.

Keighran that Hooked Media's app discovery and monetization platform would add tremendous

20 value to Apple.

21 16. The next day, Mr. Keighran emailed Ms. Uppal about having Hooked Media

22 employees return to Apple to have a deeper technical discussion around Hooked Media's

23 recommendation technology.

24 17. On June 25,2013, Ms. Uppal, Mr. Venkataraman, Mr. Cartoon, and Mr. Irvine

25 went to Apple for a "tech deep dive" meeting that included key product and technology and

26 corporate development personnel at Apple, including Mr. Keighran.

27 18. Hooked Media requested that Apple sign a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA'').

28 Apple (through Mr. Keighran) represented to Hooked Media in writing that it does not sign NDAs


1 for companies that it is interested in acquiring. Apple did however promise and guarantee that all

2 information shared by Hooked Media would be maintained with the utmost confidentiality.

3 Hooked Media is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that one of Hooked Media's bankers

4 on the acquisition, Kelemen Papp, asked Apple the same thing, and that Apple also confirmed to

5 Mr. Papp that Apple did not sign NDAs, but that everything would be completely confidential.

6 Hooked Media relied on Apple's promises regarding complete confidentiality and fidelity in going

7 forward with the "tech deep dive" meeting and later meetings with Apple and would not have

8 proceeded with any further meetings or negotiations with Apple but for Apple's promises.

9 19. At the June 25th meeting, Apple was represented by a number of senior level

10 executives and engineers. In reliance on Apple's promises of complete confidentiality during, and

11 fidelity to, the acquisition process, Hooked Media put together and presented detailed slides

12 regarding its business, its team, and the confidential and proprietary details of its technologies. It

13 was also at this meeting that Apple brought in Venkat Sundaranatha, who had recently joined

14 Apple as its Senior Engineering Manager. Mr. Sundaranatha had been hired to lead Apple's

15 expansion in the app discovery and recommendation space, and Apple represented that he was the

16 key decision-maker for the acquisition.

17 20. Hooked Media reasonably believed that this was a fortuitous event because Mr.

18 Venkataraman and Mr. Sundaranatha have known each other for nearly two decades, since their

19 time together at the Birla Institute of Technology and Science in the early 1990s. At that time, Mr.

20 Sundaranatha taught Mr. Venkataraman and Mr. Venkataraman in tum later worked for Mr.

21 Sundaranatha. Though it did not become clear to Hooked Media until December 2013, it turned

22 out that Mr. Sundaranatha's control over Mr. Venkataraman by virtue of this longstanding power

23 relationship overpowered all other obligations and duties for Mr. Venkataraman, including his

24 fiduciary duties to Hooked Media as its CTO.

25 21. The events after the June 25th meeting, however, supported Hooked Media's belief

26 that the relationship between Mr. Venkataraman and Mr. Sundaranatha would be very helpful in

27 the acquisition discussions with Apple. After the June 25th meeting concluded, Mr. Keighran

28 asked Ms. Uppal and Mr. Papp to remain behind in the conference room to discuss a few more


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0.. 10 _J

_Jn:~ 11 1-o;:: 0('1)

lL ...J I u.~

0 D ~ 12 z ~

C\1-;t a:C\10)

a:'<( 13 cnUwz ~ z ~ n: u:::<(wf( 14 u. u :::i O(l)O<( s ffi u

15 ::ictJOci <(u ucn z~o 16 <(mz

~<( ~wff: 17 wz wz<( 0

ocn 18

(J)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

details. Mr. Keighran told Ms. Uppal and Mr. Papp that he thought the meeting went very well

and that he was amazed at how attentive everyone was, including Apple's senior level executives.

When Ms. Uppal emerged from the conference room, she found Messrs. Venkataraman, Cartoon,

Irvine and Sundaranatha all talking closely together, deep in follow-up discussions.

22. On the evening of June 25,2013, Mr. Venkataraman spoke with Ms. Uppal and

informed her that, although he did not give Mr. Sundaranatha his cell phone number, Mr.

Sundaranatha had called him that night on his personal cell phone to discuss Hooked Media and

its employees, including Mr. Cartoon and Mr. Irvine. While this was improper and unauthorized,

Mr. Venkataraman convinced Ms. Uppal that his longstanding, close relationship with Mr.

Sundaranatha would work to Hooked Media's benefit during the acquisition negotiations.

Although Ms. Uppal instructed Mr. Venkataraman not to divulge confidential information, Mr.

Sundaranatha called Mr. Venk:ataraman again later in the evening on June 25, 2013 and they spoke

at length about the acquisition and Mr. Sundaranatha' s questions about Hooked Media's

technology. While these communications outside of the acquisition process were troubling,

Hooked Media did not shut down the acquisition process at that point in continued reliance on

Apple's promises and agreement of complete confidentiality of all information shared between the

parties and of their fidelity to the acquisition process.

23. After the June 25th technical meeting, the acquisition negotiations continued

steadily. By July 26, 2013, Mr. Keighran had brought in Matt Clare, from Apple's corporate

development team, to be more directly involved in the acquisition process. At this stage, Apple

requested both technical and business operational information consistent with their stated intent to

acquire Hooked Media. For example, Mr. Clare wrote in an August 14, 2013 email to Ms. Uppal,

"I'd like to have a side bar conversation with you about high level business questions: customers,

business model, carrier integration plans, cash bum, that sort of thing." During a phone

conversation later that week, Mr. Clare explained to Ms. Uppal that Apple wanted to fully

understand the technology developed by Hooked Media. In an August 14, 2013 to Ms. Uppal, Mr.

Clare wrote, "One area you might want to start prepping around is your algorithmic approach."

24. As the discussions between Apple and Hooked Media continued, Mr. Sundaranatha


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 o._ 10 ..J ..Jo:~

11 f-o;:: 0(')

LL _J I lL~

0 0 ~ 12 z ~

C\l<t (!NO>

0::< 13 (f) 0 LU z ~ z ~ 0: u:::<(we 14 lL u ::J OOJO<( s ffi u_ 15 ::idJoo <u

UUl

z~u 16 <(IDZ ~<(

~LU[f 17 wz wz<

0(f)

0 18 (f)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and Mr. Venkataraman also continued to engage in discussions and improperly exchange

information outside the formal acquisition process. Even the senior business people on the deal

from Apple noted that the communications between Mr. Sundaranatha and Mr. Venkataraman had

crossed the line. In an August 1, 2013 email to Ms. Uppal, Mr. Keighran noted that Mr.

Sundaranatha had discussed a further tech meeting with someone at Hooked Media outside formal

channels, and agreed that Hooked Media should "work through" him or Mr. Clare. Despite their

inappropriate nature, the discussions between Mr. Sundaranatha and Mr. V enkataraman did not

stop, and included requests by Mr. Sundaranatha for Mr. Venkataraman to disclose to him outside

the formal process Hooked Media confidential, trade secret information about how Hooked

Media's recommendation platform adapts to various scenarios. At one point in time, Mr.

Venkataraman even asked Mr. Cartoon to put algorithms together to send to Mr. Sundaranatha,

well after his usual work hours. Again, Hooked Media did not shut down the acquisition

negotiations in continued reliance on Apple's promises of complete confidentiality and their

representations that the acquisition process was going great.

25. Meanwhile, Hooked Media had acquisition interest from other competitors of

Apple in the app search, discovery and recommendations space, including Deutsche Telekom and

Amazon. Mr. Keighran and other Apple employees were well aware that Hooked Media was

being pursued by other companies for acquisition, and also knew that Hooked Media had

numerous other business deals ongoing and in the pipeline (i.e. T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and

others). However, by August 2013, Mr. Venkataraman had become no more than an extension of

Mr. Sundaranatha and Apple, collecting paychecks from Hooked Media, but working in Apple's

interest rather than Hooked Media's. As such, Mr. Venkataraman actively impeded acquisition

negotiations with Deutsche Telekom and Amazon and claimed that the acquisition by Apple was

the only option. For example, when asked to provide technical information to potential acquirers,

other than Apple, Mr. Venkataraman would not follow through, would not send them any

information, would misrepresent that he had done work he had not, and often would leave the

office for long periods of time or not come into work at all. Mr. Venkataraman attempted to

conceal his deceit by working from home consistently on his laptop, where others at Hooked


1 Media could not supervise his work directly, and by blaming his work failures and absences on

2 marital issues. Because Ms. Uppal considered Mr. Venkataraman a very close friend, not just a

3 colleague, she not only believed his representations about his personal issues, but felt very sorry

4 for him and did not further scrutinize his erratic behavior.

5 26. Meanwhile, as far as Hooked Media was aware, the acquisition discussions with

6 Apple appeared to be reaching a successful conclusion. As the next step to button-up the

7 acquisition, Apple requested that Hooked Media arrange an August 19,2013 meeting at Hooked

8 Media's offices to discuss Hooked Media's technology in depth with more of Apple's senior

9 executives and engineers. As of August 2013, Hooked Media had been valued at approximately

10 $60 million.

11 27. Before the August 19, 2013 meeting, Ms. Uppal re-raised her concerns to Mr. Clare

12 several times about Hooked Media disclosing its confidential and proprietary business and

13 technical information to Apple. These concerns included having the meeting at Hooked Media's

14 offices, as Apple insisted, given the open workplace culture of Hooked Media and given Apple's

15 continued refusal to sign an NDA. A few days before the August 19,2013 meeting, Mr. Clare

16 confirmed yet again to Ms. Uppal that, although Apple had claimed it does not sign Non-

17 Disclosure Agreements, everything discussed at the meeting would be kept completely

18 confidential. Relying on these representations and promises again, Hooked Media engineers met

19 with a large team of Apple engineers at Hooked Media's offices on August 19th, including

20 product leads for the Apple App Store and other high-level Apple executives, for more than five

21 hours to go over 1 00-plus Power Point slides and further discuss confidential, trade secret details of

22 Hooked Media's business operations, its team, and its technology, including its monetization

23 strategies. Mr. Sundaranatha and Payam Mirrashidi, Director of Engineering at Apple, both

24 attended the meeting. Several times during that meeting, Mr. Sundaranatha and

25 Mr. Venkataraman left the conference room and had sidebar conversations to discuss the Hooked

26 Media technology in their native language, so no one else could understand what they said. When

27 Ms. Uppal told Mr. Venkataraman that she was very uncomfortable with them having separate

28 meetings, particularly because they involved Hooked Media's intellectual property, Mr.


1 Venkataraman repeatedly instructed Mr. Uppal to trust him and that Mr. Sundaranatha had assured

2 him that things were going very well.

3 28. The August 19th meeting concluded in the late afternoon on a high note with

4 everyone discussing the need to celebrate the impending acquisition of Hooked Media by Apple.

5 Mr. Venkataraman went to celebrate with Hooked Media's two engineering leads, Mr. Irvine and

6 Mr. Cartoon, and other Hooked Media employees. Meanwhile, Ms. Uppal was scheduled to have

7 a drink with Apple's corporate lead, Mr. Clare. Mr. Clare canceled at the last minute, claiming

8 ominously that something had come up at work and that he had to return to his office. So, Ms.

9 Uppal met up with Messrs. Venkataraman, Cartoon, and Irvine. When Ms. Uppal discussed her

~ 10 concern about Mr. Clare cancelling, Mr. Venkataraman reassured her and told her not to ..Ja:,...

1-o ;::: 11 overanalyze. Mr. Venkataraman later told Ms. Uppal that after the meeting, Mr. Sundaranatha had 0(")

LLLt...!. 0 ~ :::: 12 again called him on his personal cell phone and that they had again discussed the confidential,

N<:t o:Nm

0::<( UJ U UJ z 13 trade secret details of Hooked Media's technology, including how their algorithms change under ~ z ~a: U:::<(UJt( u.. u :J 14 different user scenarios. Ms. Uppal again told Venkataraman that this concerned her and that it 0[)0<( s ffi ~ ~ UJ ~ 8 15 was improper. Given Apple's repeated promises of confidentiality in and fidelity to the

UUJ

Z a:<( u <(

[lJ z 16 acquisition process, Ms. Uppal continued to believe Mr. Venkataraman's story that his ~<(

o::::::UJIE .:::. UJ z 17 communications with Sundaranatha were beneficial to Hooked Media and that the acquisition was wz<(

0 ° Ul 18 still on track. (f)

19 29. These representations were not remotely true and everything unraveled quickly

20 from there. Two days after the last tech deep dive meeting where Hooked Media shared much of

21 its confidential, trade secret information with Apple based on Apple's continued promises and

22 representations of complete confidentiality, Mr. Clare informed Ms. Uppal that Apple's plans had

23 changed. Instead of purchasing Hooked Media, Apple was now only interested in an "acqui-hire"

24 of Messrs. Venkataraman, Irvine, and Cartoon- in other words, they wanted to take Hooked

25 Media's core engineering team for its app discovery platform, along with their accumulated

26 knowledge in developing Hooked Media's technologies. This "acqui-hire" would of course bring

27 tremendous value to Apple- the lack of a successful app discovery platform for Apple's app store

28 is a well-known, significant problem for Apple and was a key reason why Apple engaged Hooked


D... ..J ..Ja:~ 1-o;:: 0(') lL _J I

u.~

0 0 ~ z ~

C\1~ a:C\Im

ci<i cnOwz ~ z \2: a: u:<(wfi: u. u ::J OOJO<t: s ffi u ::ictJ06 <t:u ucn z~u <([IJZ

~<{ ~wff: wz w z <{ Ocn 0 (/)

1 Media in acquisition discussions from the start. Despite this, Apple only offered the amount of

2 capital Hooked Media had raised from its investors, $4.5 million. Ms. Uppal was stunned that

3 Apple would attempt to cut Hooked Media out of its own acquisition, then estimated to be about

4 $60 million, by inducing Hooked Media to disclose its confidential information and trade secrets,

5 including all the details regarding its core engineering team responsible for building its app

6 discovery and monetization platform, and then attempting to hire away all of those engineers to

7 work on this same technology for Apple for less than a tenth of what had been discussed prior to

8 this.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30. At the same time, and though Mr. V enkataraman literally swore on everything that

was important to him that he remained completely loyal to Hooked Media, he continued to work

against Hooked Media's interests and for Apple's benefit. He lobbied incessantly for Hooked

Media to agree to the acqui-hire deal proposed by Apple. To induce Hooked Media to go along

with this plan, Mr. V enkataraman further represented that he would not go to Apple, but that

Hooked Media had to proceed with the acqui-hire of Mr. Irvine and Mr. Cartoon by Apple. When

Ms. Uppal offered to speak separately to Mr. Irvine and Mr. Cartoon to offer salary and equity

increases, Mr. V enkataraman threatened to leave Hooked Media because he said that showed that

Ms. Uppal did not trust him. Mr. Venkataraman insisted that there was no option but to agree to

let Apple acqui-hire Irvine and Cartoon. Throughout August and September 2013, Hooked Media

is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Mr. V enkataraman, Mr. Irvine, and Mr. Cartoon

continued to have discussions with Apple regarding Hooked Media's confidential and trade secret

information, and about structuring an acqui-hire deal that would move all of Hooked Media's

engineering team over to Apple without Apple having to pay to acquire Hooked Media at all.

31. Despite the appalling nature of what had occurred, Hooked Media considered the

acqui-hire proposal, because Mr. Venkataraman demanded it and in reliance on his continued

representations that he was going to stay, and that Hooked Media could move forward and sign the

deal with Deutsche Telekom, continue its ongoing work with HTC, and/or be successfully

acquired by another company. Hooked Media informed Apple that hiring its CTO, Mr.

Venkataraman, could not be part of any such deal, as that would leave Hooked Media without any


0.. _J _Ja:~

1-o;::: 0(') u.. ..J I u.~

0 0 ~ z ~

C\l<;j-a:C\10)

ti<l: (/) 0 lJ.J z wzf-a: u z 0 u::: <( lJ.J u. u. u :J o ID o <1: s ffi c: :}ctJOO <l:u

UUJ z~u <(IDZ

~<1: ~w[E

wz wz<l: 00(1)

U)

1 engineering team and unable to continue its substantial business with Apple's competitors, like

2 HTC.

3 32. While Hooked Media considered the "acqui-hire" proposal from Apple, Hooked

4 Media (through Ms. Uppal) had one requirement- that all the negotiations needed to run through

5 Ms. Uppal. Apple promised and represented that these negotiations would all go through Ms.

6 Uppal, though again those representations ended up being false. Mr. Sundaranatha and other

7 Apple employees continued to reach out to Mr. Irvine and Mr. Cartoon (and of course Mr.

8 Venkataraman) behind Ms. Uppal's back.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33. Meanwhile, Mr. V enkataraman continued to represent that he would not leave

Hooked Media, and in fact sought and accepted a raise including profit-sharing in mid-October

2013, which became effective November 1, 2013. He continued however to claim that acceding to

Apple's demands in hiring Mr. Cartoon and Mr. Irvine was the only thing Hooked Media could

do. These representations were false and, based on information and belief, were made to help

conceal that Mr. V enkataraman continued to work on the side with Mr. Sundaranatha and Apple to

broker the hiring of all three men in a phased way to avoid undue suspicion by Ms. Uppal.

34. Next, during a follow-up phone conversation in late September 2013, Mr. Clare

informed Ms. Uppal that for reasons he did not understand, Apple was no longer willing to pay

even the $4.5 million it had previously offered to Hooked Media for the "acqui-hire." Instead,

Apple would pay only a "finder's fee" of 30% of each employee's salary. Ms. Uppal was

astonished that Apple was now even going back on its offer of $4.5 million for the "acqui-hire."

This new offer was offensive, but again, and even though it would have left a huge hole in his own

team, Mr. Venkataraman argued that Hooked Media had to take the further reduced deal. But for

this new deal to happen without significant impact to Hooked Media's current and future business,

Hooked Media would have first had to hire replacements, arrange for continuity of service for

Hooked Media's customers, and fully transition the engineering and technical knowledge from

Irvine and Cartoon. Apple was aware of this, but pressed its proposal anyway.

35. In addition to coercing and threatening Hooked Media that it had to take the

"finder's fee" offered by Apple even though such a deal made no sense for Hooked Media, Mr.


1 V enkataraman continued not showing up to work and sabotaging deals that did not involve Apple.

2 Hooked Media is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that instead Mr. V enkataraman

3 continued working with and for the benefit Apple, along with Mr. Cartoon and Mr. Irvine, even

4 though Hooked Media was still their employer. Defendants' scheme continued into early

5 November 2013, while Ms. Uppal was out of the office for health reasons. When she returned to

6 the office on November 12, 2013, she received a call from HireRight (a provider of employment

7 background checks) on behalf of Apple, and through this call found out that Apple had already

8 gone around her, despite Apple's promises to the contrary, and that Mr. Cartoon and Mr. Irvine

9 were leaving for Apple at the end of the week, even though no deal had been finalized and even

10 though neither had sufficiently arranged for continuity of service to customers or transitioned his

11 work with Hooked Media.

12 36. On Friday, November 15, 2013, Mr. Cartoon and Mr. Irvine left Hooked Media to

13 go to Apple, having given just two days' notice to Hooked Media. They both had copies of

14 confidential and proprietary Hooked Media intellectual property on their computers. Neither

15 made arrangements to confirm with Hooked Media that they had removed these materials from

16 their computers. Hooked Media is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the next

17 Monday, they started work at Apple.

18 37. Also on November 15, 2013, Ms. Uppal overheard Mr. Venkataraman tell Mr.

19 Cartoon and Mr. Irvine that he would see them the following Friday, November 22, 2013. Mr.

20 Venkataraman did not come to work at Hooked Media the following Friday. Hooked Media is

21 informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Venkataraman was working at or with Apple

22 instead.

23 38. Meanwhile, Apple's conduct became even more brazen. In a November 22,2013

24 email, Mr. Sundaranatha revised his proposed "finder's fee" amount to 15%, a total of $45,000.

25 At the same time, Mr. Venkataraman acted like Apple's hiring of these two critical engineers was

26 not a problem because he could keep things going alone. Mr. Venkataraman continued to assure

27 Ms. Uppal that he intended to remain at Hooked Media "until the end." Mr. Venkataraman

28 omitted however that he intended to "end" Hooked Media shortly thereafter, and that he had


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0... 10 ..J ..Ja:,..

11 f-o;:: 0(') LL....! I u...-0 0 ,.. 12 z ,..

C'J-:t a:C'JOJ

ci<( 13 en U w z w z I- a: u z 0 u::<(wu. 14 u. u :J 0[}0<( s ffi u

15 ::idJOO <t:u ucn z~u 16 <(rnZ ::2:<( ~wff: 17 wz UJZ<(

Ocn 0 18 (f)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

already gone through the formality of submitting his job application to Apple.

MR. VENKATARAMAN LEAVES FOR APPLE, COPIES IP, AND REMOVES KEY DATA

39. The next week, starting November 25th, Mr. Venkataraman continued to act

erratically, failed to do his job, and continued to undermine Hooked Media with its customers,

including Deutsche Telekom. Hooked Media is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that

Mr. Venkataraman was intentionally baiting Ms. Uppal into firing him, so he could officially join

Cartoon and Irvine at Apple as soon as possible. As a result, on November 26, 2013, Ms. Uppal

confronted Mr. V enkataraman about his poor performance, and he tendered his resignation,

effective that day. He did not confirm however that he would be going to Apple, or even say that

he had another job lined up. Ms. Uppal was shocked by this betrayal, as they had worked side-by

side for the past five years and had put everything they had into building Hooked Media as a team.

40. Mr. Venkataraman agreed that he would make sure to transition all of his work and

operational knowledge to a contract engineer Hooked Media immediately hired and that his last

day would be December 13, 2013. After November 26, 2013, Mr. Venkataraman's actions were

no longer as the CTO of Hooked Media, but rather he was authorized and permitted by Hooked

Media only to access, copy, change, or make any other use of Hooked Media's computer systems

or intellectual property solely to transition his work and operational knowledge.

41. Despite their falling out, Ms. Uppal was still hopeful that Mr. Venkataraman would

change his mind and not betray Hooked Media. However, Ms. Uppal also attempted to mitigate

the damage to Hooked Media by hiring contract engineers to help with the transition. Meanwhile,

she continued to express her grave concerns to Mr. V enkataraman about how Apple had gone

behind her back to raid Hooked Media's core engineering team, which they had learned of through

confidential acquisition meetings and related confidential discussions. Apple's actions were all

the more galling because Apple was fully aware of the importance of Mr. Cartoon and Mr. Irvine

(not to mention Mr. Venkataraman) to Hooked Media's technology, business, and operations,

including the current and prospective business deals described above, as a result of these

numerous technical acquisition meetings. Hooked Media would never have participated in any of

those acquisition meetings and shared those critical and confidential details of its technologies and


0... ..J ..Ja:~

l-or;: 0(')

u..ii~ 0 ~ ~

N<:t a: NO> ri<( (/) u w z

wzf-a: u z 0 u:: <( w u.. u.. u ::J 0[1)0<( s ffi u :)dJ~8

0(})

z~u <( rnZ

~<( o:::;::wff: O:::::::wz wz<( 00(})

(j)

1 business operations, but for its reliance on Apple's repeated promises of complete confidentiality.

2 42. Following Ms. Uppal's discussions with Venkataraman, on or about December 2,

3 2013, Mr. Sundaranatha called Ms. Uppal more than a dozen times, including on private numbers

4 never given to Mr. Sundaranatha and not generally known. Ms. Uppal was alarmed by this bizarre

5 intrusion by Mr. Sundaranatha, following directly after her discussions with Mr. Venkataraman

6 about her grave concerns about what had occurred.

7 43. December 9, 2013 was the final day that Hooked Media existed as a viable

8 company. Mr. Venkataraman had been acting particularly erratic and nervous that day. Hooked

9 Media is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Mr. V enkataraman knew at that point

10 that the writing was on the wall because Ms. Uppal had uncovered his plan to move to Apple to

11 join Cartoon and Irvine.

12 44. In the early afternoon on December 9th, Ms. Uppal finally spoke with

13 Mr. Sundaranatha by telephone, re-raising her concerns that Mr. Sundaranatha had hired Messrs.

14 Cartoon and Irvine (and it appeared now Venkataraman) to transplant Hooked Media's trade

15 secrets to Apple and that Mr. Venkataraman had been taking steps with Apple that were

16 apparently designed to sabotage Hooked Media's business with Apple's knowledge and help. She

17 also noted that Messrs. Sundaranatha and Venkataraman had engaged in private side conversations

18 throughout the acquisition process, including Mr. Venkataraman's admissions that

19 Mr. Sundaranatha was asking for (and received) the confidential and trade secret details of

20 Hooked Media's app discovery and monetization platform. Mr. Sundaranatha responded that he

21 was only doing what Apple had instructed him to do and stated flatly that "Apple is going to do

22 what Apple is going to do."

23 45. Later that afternoon, Ms. Uppal sent an email summarizing parts of that

24 conversation to Mr. Sundaranatha, cc'ing Mr. Clare and Mr. Mirrashidi. She also notified them

25 that Messrs. Cartoon and Irvine had continuing obligations not to use or disclose Hooked Media's

26 confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information to any subsequent employer. Ms. Uppal

27 did not include Mr. Venkataraman, as she still hoped that he would reconsider given their five plus

28 years of work together. That hope soon vanished.


0.. _J

_Ja:~

1-o;::: OM Ll.. _J I u.~

0 0 ~ z ~

C'J"<t a:Nm

ci<( (/) u UJ z ~ z ~a: u:::<{w[( u. u :J 0[)0<( s ffi u :)ctJOO <(u

UUJ z~u <{rnz

~<( ~UJ[f wz wz<( 00(1)

(/)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

46. Rather than staying through December 13th as he had promised or even confirm

with Hooked Media that he was leaving to join Apple, the night of December 9th, under cover of

darkness, Mr. Venkataraman returned to Hooked Media's offices to take what he needed to bring

to Apple, and before departing for good, Mr. Venkataraman used the knowledge and access he had

obtained through being the former CTO to eviscerate Hooked Media before he left.

Contemporaneously with his departure that night, thousands of emails and other files were

systematically removed from Hooked Media's computer systems. These included:

• all contents of the "Engineering" folder in Mr. Venkataraman's Hooked email account, going back to April 2008;

• all contents of the "Prita" (Ms. Uppal's first name) folder in Mr. Venkataraman's Hooked email account, going back to April2008;

• all contents of the "Inbox" after December 31, 2012 in Mr. Venkataraman' s Hooked email account;

• all contents ofthe "Product" folder after May 29, 2013 in Mr. Venkataraman's Hooked email account;

• all emails after May 21, 2013 in a folder labeled "HTC"; and

• emails in the Hooked account used by Mr. Irvine going back to 2008, including technical documents and related communications.

4 7. At the same time, other folders, containing non-essential information, were

19 undisturbed. Upon information and belief, the deletion and/or removal of Mr. Venkataraman's

20 emails was targeted on the basis of factors including date and folder topic to cause the most

21 damage, as Venkataraman knew that Hooked Media could not operate without this data.

22 48. In his last moments that night before walking out the door from Hooked Media,

23 Mr. Venkataraman copied Hooked Media's entire code base to a personal storage account and

24 made numerous unknown and unexplained changes to the code base. Mr. Venkataraman also took

25 with him his desktop, which had contained Hooked Media's entire code set and documentation for

26 every piece of technology Hooked had built since its inception in 2008. Mr. Venkataraman also

27 had other copies of Hooked Media's code and its confidential, proprietary and trade secret

28 information on his laptop, which he also took with him. That same night Mr. Venkataraman


a.. ...J ...Ja:.-f-or:: Ocry LL -' I u...-0 0 ..... z .....

C'l<:t ((C'lOJ

0:<( cnUwz wzl-a: u z 0 u:: ~ UJ u.. u.. u ::J 0(1)0<( s ffi u ::L:tJ o o <(u

ucn z~u ~rnZ

~<( ~wfE wz WZ<(

Ocn 0 (/)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

created three new Github users to access Hooked Media's code base, at least one of which appears

to have been named in order to conceal that they were for his continued use after that night. Mr.

Venkataraman neither told anyone else about creating an apparent backdoor to the code base, nor

did he share the login credentials with anyone else at Hooked Media. On December 9, Mr.

V enkataraman also accessed an account named "Prita" on Github, an account of which Ms. Uppal

had no knowledge. To this day, Mr. Venkataraman is still the only person with access to those

accounts and the information from Hooked Media on them. Hooked Media intends to fully

discover what occurred, however, and will amend its complaint as appropriate.

49. Hooked Media is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that after Mr.

V enkataraman left Hooked Media, he continued to access, without authorization, Hooked Media's

cloud storage accounts through his personal storage account and through the fake user accounts

that he created before he left Hooked Media on December 9, 2013. Further, Mr. Venkataraman

still had access to the Hooked Media's Github from his own personal "vchandru" account, which

records show that he finally logged on to Github to disable on December 18, 2013 - 22 days after

he had resigned as CTO and 9 days after he had left Hooked Media in shambles.

THE FATAL IMPACT OF THE SCHEME

50. In addition to actively deleting and/or otherwise removing numerous necessary

business and operational files from Hooked Media's computer systems, which he had no reason,

permission or authorization to do, Mr. Venkataraman also took with him critical operational

information that he alone was aware of as the systems administrator, including login and password

information for Hooked Media's computer systems and cloud storage accounts. He did not

transition that critical operational information and did not make sufficient arrangements for

continuity of service for Hooked Media's customers and partners. Accordingly, by structuring the

departure of the core engineering team without requisite notice or transition plans, leaving himself

without requisite notice or transition plans, and deleting and/or otherwise removing critical data,

documents and related Hooked Media information on his way out the door, Mr. Venkataraman

made it impossible for Hooked Media to continue operating and doing business, including with

28 Apple's competitors like HTC. In short, it appears that Mr. Venkataraman ensured that Hooked


0... _J _Ja:~

f-o;::: 0("1) u.. ...J ' lL~

0 0 ~ z ~

N<t ((NO>

ci<( UJ u w z wzf-a: u z 0 u::<(wlL lL u :J OOJO<( s ffi u ~ctJOO <(u

UUJ z~c::; <(mZ

~<( ~wff:

wz wz<( OOUJ

(f)

1 Media would be unable to compete with any similar product he and Hooked Media's core

2 engineering team would create at Apple, for Apple, using Hooked Media's own intellectual

3 property and team.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

51. In the end, Apple was able to "acqui-hire" Hooked Media's core engineering team

for free, based on its knowledge of the confidential and trade secret information shared by Hooked

Media, to bring to Apple the same technology Hooked Media also shared in confidence with

Apple, from June through at least August of2013. The actions of Apple, together with Mr.

Venkataraman, left Hooked Media unable to even continue its substantial work with HTC, sign its

finalized contract with Deutsche Telekom, or attempt to re-start acquisition discussions with the

other suitors that had expressed interest. Defendants' actions also prevented Hooked Media's app

recommendation and monetization platform from continuing to function at all because there was

no engineering support left and the engineering and operational knowledge of Hooked Media's

core engineering team was never transferred properly. In short, VentureBeat was correct that

Hooked Media's app recommendation platform was "one that Apple can't kill," but only insofar

as Apple needed Mr. Venkataraman to accomplish that final result.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets)

Against All Defendants

52. Hooked Media incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

20 set forth herein.

21 53. Defendants acquired trade secret information obtained from Hooked Media during

22 the acquisition discussions and outside the formal acquisition process as they were passed by Mr.

23 Venkataraman to Mr. Sundaranatha and Apple, as well as from the data, documents, and other

24 related trade secrets that Mr. Venkataraman took with him upon leaving Hooked Media, including

25 but not limited to, Hooked Media's customers, business model and monetization strategy,

26 algorithms, proprietary recommendation strategies, clustering and predictive technologies, and

27 carrier integration plans. In addition, Defendants learned confidential and trade secret details

28 regarding the makeup, skills, and contributions of Hooked Media's core engineering team during


1 the same acquisition discussions and through Mr. V enkataraman outside the acquisition process

2 that allowed Defendants to specifically target Hooked Media's core engineering team. Upon

3 information and belief, during his last day at Hooked Media, Mr. V enkataraman also made at least

4 fourteen (14) changes to Hooked Media's code and accessed the latest copy of Hooked Media's

5 entire code base, effectively giving him continued access to a local copy of all of Hooked Media's

6 internal, closed-source data even after Mr. Venkataraman left Hooked Media for Apple.

7 Defendants acquired Hooked Media's trade secrets through improper means and/or where there

8 was a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use, including but not limited to because Defendants

9 knew and/or had reason to know that the trade secrets are Hooked Media's intellectual property

10 and that Defendants were under a duty of confidentiality and were aware that Mr. Venkataraman

11 also had fiduciary duties to Hooked Media by virtue of his privileged position as the CTO.

12 54. Hooked Media is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants

13 are now using Hooked Media's trade secrets, without its consent, to recreate Hooked Media's

14 technology for Apple.

15 55. The confidential information acquired by Defendants is proprietary and highly

16 confidential, derives substantial economic value by not being known to the public, and is

17 specifically not known to Hooked Media's customer and competitors.

18 56. Hooked Media has undertaken all reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its

19 confidential information, including requiring its employees to agree in writing that they will not

20 disclose Hooked Media's confidential information without Hooked Media's consent. Further,

21 Hooked Media required and obtained the agreement of Apple to keep the same information

22 completely confidential. Such confidential information constitutes trade secrets within the

23 meaning of California Civil Code Section 3426.1.

24 57. Defendants' misconduct detailed herein constitutes misappropriation of Hooked

25 Media's trade secrets and violates Sections 3426 et seq. of the California Civil Code. As a direct

26 and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Hooked Media has been damaged in amount to be

27 proven at trial, including but not limited to being unable to continue its substantial business

28 relationship with HTC, execute its finalized contract with Deutsche Telekom, and/or re-start


1 acquisition discussions with other interested companies.

2 58. Pursuant to Section 3426.2 of the California Civil Code, Hooked Media is entitled

3 to an injunction to prohibit Defendants from using, disclosing and/or otherwise benefiting from

4 Hooked Media's trade secrets, to eliminate any commercial advantage to Defendants which may

5 otherwise derive from their misappropriation, and to require Defendants to immediately return to

6 Hooked Media all confidential information, documents, and any other materials which they have

7 wrongfully obtained.

8 59. Pursuant to Section 3426.3 of the California Civil Code, Hooked Media is entitled

9 to recover its damages incurred by virtue of Defendants' wrongful misappropriation of their trade

10 secrets, in addition to disgorgement of all amounts by which Defendants have been unjustly

11 enriched, or the payment of a reasonable royalty, in an amount to be proven at trial.

12 60. In performing the conduct described herein, Defendants acted willfully and

13 maliciously, intending to injure Hooked Media and to wrongfully obtain an advantage at Hooked

14 Media's expense and detriment. Pursuant to Section 3426.3(c) of the California Civil Code,

15 Hooked Media is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants, two

16 times the damages and unjust enrichment, or reasonable royalty, awarded for the misappropriation

17 above.

18 61. Pursuant to Section 3426.4 of the California Civil Code, Hooked Media is also

19 entitled to an award of its attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action.

20

21

22

23 62.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Interference with Contract)


Hooked Media incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully


25 63. As described herein, Hooked Media had existing business relationships, which

26 generated approximately $1 million a month in revenue to Hooked Media by late 2013, and

27 additional existing business relationships that would have multiplied that amount starting in 2014.

28 64. Defendants were and are aware of the existing contracts Hooked Media had,


1 including but not limited to its contract with HTC, and intentionally interfered with Hooked

2 Media's receipt of those benefits for their own commercial gain.

3 65. Because of Defendants' misconduct alleged herein, Hooked Media has been

4 damaged in amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to being unable to continue its

5 substantial business relationship with HTC, execute its finalized contract with Deutsche Telekom,

6 and/or re-start acquisition discussions with other interested companies.

7 66. Defendants' conduct has been malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and entitles

8 Hooked Media to an award of punitive and/or exemplary damages.

9

10

11

12 67.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)




14 68. As described in more detail herein, Hooked Media had prospective business

15 relationships and those clients and potential clients posed a high probability of future economic

16 benefit to Hooked Media.

17 69. Defendants were and are aware of the prospective business relationships and

18 potential benefits to Hooked Media and intentionally interfered with Hooked Media's receipt of

19 those benefits for their own commercial gain.

20 70. Because of Defendants' misconduct alleged herein, Hooked Media has been





25 Hooked Media to an award of punitive or exemplary damages.

26 II

27 //

28 //


11. ..J ..Jo::,... 1-o;:: 0(") LL ....1 I lJ..,-

0 0 ,... z ,... N'<t

a:Nm ci<l: UlUw:z

l:J z ~ 0:: u::<(wf2 lL u :J OOJO<t: s ffi ~ ::)ctJDo

<l:u UUl z~o <([IJZ

~<{ ~w[ wz wz<~:

0U) 0 (/)

1

2

3

4 72.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud)



5 set forth herein.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73. At all relevant times, Mr. V enkataraman was the CTO of Hooked Media and owed

duties to Hooked Media to keep Hooked Media fully and honestly informed as to all matters

pertinent to Hooked Media's interests, to disclose to Hooked Media all facts coming to his

attention during the course and scope ofhis duties which were material to Hooked Media's

business, and not to misrepresent any material facts to Hooked Media. Meanwhile, as described

above, Apple made false promises that it would keep confidential Hooked Media's proprietary

technology and information and not use confidential information disclosed to it during the

acquisition discussions against Hooked Media. Apple further made false promises that it would

negotiate and deal directly with Hooked Media's CEO and instead went behind her back to

acquire the engineers it wanted from Hooked Media, based on confidential information it learned

during the acquisition process, without paying anything to Hooked Media. Apple further

concealed its true plans to use the confidential information it learned during the acquisition

discussions and through Mr. Venkataraman to raid Hooked Media's core engineering team,

thereby preventing Hooked Media from being able to transition their knowledge and duties

properly and from continuing its business operations.

74. Because of Mr. Venkataraman's position of trust and confidence with Hooked

Media, Hooked Media justifiably relied on Mr. Venkataraman to keep Hooked Media fully

informed, to make Hooked Media aware of all material information coming to his attention and

which concerned Hooked Media's business, and to not misrepresent or conceal material facts to

Hooked Media which concerned Hooked Media's business. Similarly, Hooked Media justifiably

26

27

relied on Apple's multiple affirmative representations and promises that it would keep the

information shared by Hooked Media with the utmost confidentiality and would not misuse that

28 information. Hooked Media also justifiably relied on Defendants' misrepresentations because


1 they actively concealed their true motives from Hooked Media.

2 75. Mr. V enkataraman knowingly and intentionally failed and refused to keep Hooked

3 Media fully informed of material information by concealing the material information from Hooked

4 Media, i.e., failing to inform Hooked Media about the nature and extent of the Hooked Media

5 confidential information he and Apple were sharing and that Apple was at the same time inducing

6 him to leave Hooked Media and take its core engineering team with him. Mr. V enkataraman also

7 affirmatively misrepresented the true facts about his relationship with Apple and his work with

8 Apple to sabotage and undermine Hooked Media. Hooked Media is also informed and believes,

9 and thereon alleges, that Apple also knowingly and intentionally made the false promises and

10 concealments described herein with the intent to cause Hooked Media to rely on their false

11 promises because, for example, their team lead admitted that he was following orders and that

12 Apple was going to do what Apple was going to do, i.e. regardless of the consequences for

13 Hooked Media.

14 76. At the time of the affirmative misrepresentations, promises, and omissions

15 described herein, Defendants knew that the affirmative misrepresentations, promises, and

16 omissions were of information relevant and material to Hooked Media and its current and future

17 business plans.

18 77. Defendants made the affirmative misrepresentations, promises, and omissions

19 described herein with the intent to cause Hooked Media's reliance to its detriment.

20 78. Hooked Media did rely to its detriment on Defendants' affirmative

21 misrepresentations, promises, and omissions described herein. As a proximate result of the

22 misconduct of Defendants, Hooked Media has been damaged in amount to be proven at trial,

23 including but not limited to being unable to continue its substantial business relationship with

24 HTC, execute its finalized contract with Deutsche Telekom, and/or re-start acquisition discussions

25 with other interested companies.


27 Hooked Media to an award of punitive and/or exemplary damages.

28 II


1

2

3

4 80.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Misrepresentation)



5 set forth herein.

6 81. As described herein, Defendants made multiple untrue representations of past or

7 existing material facts. They made these representations without any reasonable ground for

8 believing them to be true and/or in a manner not warranted by their own information.

9

10

82.

83.

Defendants intended that Hooked Media rely on their negligent misrepresentations.

Hooked Media reasonably and justifiably relied to its detriment on the negligent

11 misrepresentations made by Defendants.

12 84. As a proximate result of the misconduct of Defendants, Hooked Media has been




16 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

17 (Violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Pen. Code § 502)

18 Against Mr. Venkataraman

19 85. Hooked Media's computer systems and computer data are essential to Hooked

20 Media's operations and financial well-being as they contain login and password information,

21 information about Hooked Media's code and other critical information necessary to operate

22 Hooked Media's business and service its customers.

23 86. Mr. Venkatararnan is a savvy technical expert, the former CTO of the company,

24 and former systems administrator with the most knowledge about Hooked Media's computer

25 systems and cloud storage accounts and services. As described herein, Mr. Venkatararnan

26 knowingly accessed Hooked Media's computer network and data with the intent to disrupt or deny

27 services to Hooked Media, even though he lacked authorization or permission after his resignation

28 to access Hooked Media's computer network for any purpose other than transition his work and


1 operational knowledge. After he had resigned from his position at Hooked Media and while he

2 was permitted only to help transition his work and operational knowledge, Mr. Venkataraman

3 altered, damaged, removed, and/or destroyed emails and files within Hooked Media's computers

4 and servers and related cloud storage accounts, including in order to disrupt and/or deny access to

5 Hooked Media's data and property in violation of California Penal Code Section 502.

6 87. As described herein, after he left Hooked Media, Hooked Media is informed and

7 believes and thereon alleges that Mr. Venkataraman also knowingly accessed Hooked Media's

8 data on its cloud storage account without Hooked Media's permission in violation of California

9 Penal Code Section 502, including through his vchandru account which he finally logged on and

10 then disabled on December 18th, as well as the other accounts described above, which

11 Venkataraman created in his final hours in Hooked Media's office and still apparently has access

12 to.

13 88. As a direct result of Mr. V enkataraman' s willful acts in violation of California

14 Penal Code Section 502, Hooked Media's access to its essential computer files was disrupted

15 and/or denied and Hooked Media has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, including

16 but not limited to being unable to continue its substantial business relationship with HTC, execute

17 its finalized contract with Deutsche Telekom, and/or re-start acquisition discussions with other

18 interested companies.

19 89. Mr. Venkataraman's conduct has been malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and

20 entitles Hooked Media to an award of punitive and/or exemplary damages.

21

22

23

24 90.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

Against Mr. Venkataraman



26 91. Until November 26,2013, Mr. Venkataraman was acting as the CTO of Hooked

27 Media, at least as far as Hooked Media believed, and up until December 9, 2013 still owed duties

28 to Hooked Media as he purported to transition his work. Prior to November 26, 2013, Mr.


D.. ..J ..Jrr:~

l-or:: OM lL _J I

u_~

0 0 ~ z ~

C'J<;t a:C'Jm

O::<t: (J) u u.J z ~ z ~ rr: U:<(u.i~ LL U :J 0 OJ 0 <t: s ffi u :::tidJoo <t:u

UUl

z~u <(roz

~<t: ~u.J[

u.iz wz<t:

0(}) 0 (f)

1 V enkataraman participated in the management of Hooked Media's business and exercised

2 discretionary authority on Hooked Media's behalf. Mr. Venkataraman owed fiduciary duties to

3 Hooked Media including the duties of loyalty and due care, to account to Hooked Media and to

4 keep Hooked Media fully and honestly informed as to all matters pertinent to Hooked Media's

5 interest. As such, Mr. Venkataraman was required to act in Hooked Media's best interests and not

6 for his own benefit or the benefit of third parties in all matters pertinent to Hooked Media's

7 interests.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

92. Mr. Venkataraman acted on Hooked Media's behalf for purposes of negotiating

Hooked Media's possible acquisition by Apple. However, as described further herein, during the

course of the discussion between Hooked Media and Apple, Mr. Venkataraman disclosed to Apple

and Apple employees, outside the formal process, confidential information about Hooked Media's

technology, business plans and personnel. Mr. Venkataraman also hatched a plan with Apple to

structure a departure of all of Hooked Media's engineering team, including himself, in such a way

that prevented a proper transition of their engineering and operational knowledge, so as to destroy

Hooked Media and its ability to fulfill its contractual obligations and service its own customers.

93. In addition, before Mr. Venkataraman left Hooked Media for Apple, he deleted

and/or otherwise removed massive amounts of critical electronic files that were Hooked Media's

property. Mr. Venkataraman also took his desktop when he left and had a separate laptop

computer that he used, both of which contained Hooked Media's code, Hooked Media's trade

secrets, and documentation for every piece of technology Hooked Media had built since its

21 inception in 2008.

22 94. Upon information and belief, during his last day at Hooked Media, Mr.

23 Venkataraman also made at least fourteen (14) changes to Hooked Media's code and accessed the

24 latest copy of Hooked Media's entire code base, effectively giving him continued access to a local

25 copy of all of Hooked Media's internal, closed-source data even after Mr. Venkataraman left

26 Hooked Media for Apple.

27 95. By disclosing confidential information to Apple outside the formal negotiation

28 process and by sabotaging Hooked Media's electronic files, Mr. Venkataraman failed to act as a


1 reasonably careful CTO would have acted under the similar circumstances and therefore breached

2 his fiduciary duty to Hooked Media.

3 96. As a result of Mr. V enkataraman' s breach of fiduciary duty, Hooked Media has

4 been damaged in amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to being unable to

5 continue its substantial business relationship with HTC, execute its finalized contract with

6 Deutsche Telekom, and/or re-start acquisition discussions with other interested companies.

7 97. Mr. Venkataraman's conduct was malicious, fraudulent and oppressive and entitles

8 Hooked Media to an award of punitive or exemplary damages.

9

10

11

12 98.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

Against Apple



14 99. Apple knew that Mr. Venkataraman was the CTO of Hooked Media and therefore

15 had fiduciary duties to Hooked Media to act in Hooked Media's best interests and to keep Hooked

16 Media fully and honestly informed as to all matters relating to Hooked Media's interest. Apple

17 intended to and did in fact aid and abet Mr. V enkataraman in breaching his fiduciary duties to

18 Hooked Media by providing substantial assistance or encouragement to Mr. Venkataraman to so

19 act. Hooked Media is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Apple offered Mr.

20 Venkataraman employment and other consideration in exchange for the acts described herein that

21 were in breach of Mr. Venkataraman's duties to Hooked Media. By encouraging Mr.

22 Venkataraman to breach his fiduciary duty, Apple aided and abetted that breach.

23 100. As a result of Apple's substantial encouragement and/or assistance to have Mr.

24 Venkataraman breach his fiduciary duties to Hooked Media, Hooked Media has been damaged in

25 an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to being unable to continue its substantial

26 business relationship with HTC, execute its finalized contract with Deutsche Telekom, and/or re-

27 start acquisition discussions with other interested companies.

28 101. Apple's conduct was malicious, fraudulent and oppressive and entitles Hooked


1 Media to an award of punitive and/or exemplary damages.

2

3

4

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract)

Against Mr. Venkataraman

5 102. Hooked Media incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully

6 set forth herein.

7 103. In connection with his employment at Hooked Media, Mr. Venkataraman entered

8 into several agreements relevant to that employment, including but not limited to a Non-

9 Disclosure Agreement, in the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, along with his

10 signature page attached as Exhibit B.2

11 104. The Non-Disclosure Agreement Mr. Venkataraman signed upon becoming

12 employed at Hooked Media provides in pertinent part his agreement to use "Confidential

13 Information only in the performance of [his] duties for (Hooked Media]" and to "take all action

14 reasonably necessary to protect the Confidential Information from being disclosed to anyone other

15 than persons authorized by the Company." "Confidential Information," as defined in the Non-

16 Disclosure Agreement includes not only trade secrets, but "any other technical, operating,

17 financial and other business information that has commercial value." In addition, the agreement

18 requires Mr. Venkataraman to complete a form of acknowledgement upon separation, swearing

19 under oath, that he "understand[s] that all of the Company's materials (including without

20 limitation, written or printed documents, email and computer disks or tapes, whether machine or

21 user readable, computer memory, and other information reduced to any recorded format or

22 medium), whether or not they contain Confidential Information (as that phrase is defined in the

23 Agreement), are and remain the property of the Company. I have delivered to authorized

24 Company personnel, or have destroyed, all of those documents and all other Company materials in

25 my possession." (emphasis added).

26

27 2 As described in Footnote No. 1, the company formally changed its name from Gamook, Inc. to Hooked Media Group, Inc. in 2009.

28


1 105. Hooked Media performed all obligations required of it under its contracts with Mr.

2 V enkataraman and at no time were there any outstanding conditions precedent to the required

3 performance of Mr. Venkataraman of his contractual obligations to Hooked Media.

4 106. Mr. Venkataraman breached his contract with Hooked Media, including but not

5 limited to provisions 2.2 and 2.3, by, among other things, the misconduct detailed herein without

6 legal justification or excuse.

7 107. As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Venkataraman's breaches of contract with

8 Hooked Media, Hooked Media has sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including

9 but not limited to being unable to continue its substantial business relationship with HTC, execute

10 its finalized contract with Deutsche Telekom, and/or re-start acquisition discussions with other

11 interested companies.

12

13

14

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment/Restitution)




17 1 09. As a result of Defendants' misconduct, misrepresentations, breaches of duties,

18 and/or aiding and abetting breaches of duty, they have been unjustly enriched by being

19 compensated for and profiting from such misconduct.

20 110. Defendants' unjust enrichment was obtained at Hooked Media's direct expense as

21 described herein and their retention of the property, benefits and profits from their wrongful

22 misconduct is unjust.

23 111. Defendants hold all such property, profits, and benefits, of any form, and all assets

24 into which any such compensation and benefits have been transferred or transmuted, or are

25 otherwise traceable, in constructive trust for the benefit of Hooked Media. Hooked Media is

26 entitled to an order requiring Defendants to make restitution to Hooked Media of all such

27 property, profits, and benefits.

28 II


1

2

3

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unfair Business Practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code§ 17200 et seq.)



5 set forth herein.

6 113. The misconduct of Defendants described herein constitutes unlawful, unfair and/or

7 fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200,

8 et seq. The misconduct was unlawful in that it violated the laws and statutes described above.

9 The misconduct was fraudulent as described above. Further, it was unfair in that the actions

10 significantly threatened and/or harmed competition, including but not limited to preventing

11 Hooked Media from being able to develop, market and sell its app discovery platform in

12 competition with Apple and from continuing and/or expanding its business relationships with

13 competitors of Apple, like HTC.

14 114. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent

15 business practices, Hooked Media has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial pecuniary

16 losses and irreparable injury to their business reputation and goodwill. As such, Hooked Media's

17 remedy at law is not adequate to compensate for injuries inflicted by Defendants. Accordingly,

18 Hooked Media is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief against

19 Defendants.

20 115. In addition, Defendants must restore any property and other benefits and

21 compensation unjustly taken from Hooked Media as a result of the unlawful, unfair and/or

22 fraudulent business practices by Defendants.

23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Hooked Media prays for judgment in its favor, as follows:

25 1. That the Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction returning Hooked

26 Media's intellectual property and enjoining Defendants, their successors, officers, agents, and

27 employees, and anyone acting in concert with or at their behest, from further misappropriation of

28 Hooked Media's intellectual property;


1 2.

2 proof at trial;

3

4

5

3.

4.

5.

That Hooked Media be awarded actual and consequential damages according to

That Hooked Media be awarded prejudgment interest;

That Hooked Media be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees;

That Hooked Media be awarded Defendants' unjust enrichment and full restitution,

6 including but not limited to wrongful profits and actual gains;

7

8

6.

7.

That Hooked Media be awarded reasonable royalties, as provided by law;

That Hooked Media be awarded punitive and/or exemplary damages, including but

9 not limited to doubled damages and unjust enrichment under Cal. Civ. Code Section 3426;

10

11

7.

8.

That Hooked Media be awarded the costs of prosecuting this claim;

That Hooked Media be awarded such other injunctive and provisional remedies, as

12 appropriate, as well as an accounting; and,

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9. That Hooked Media be granted such other and further relief as the Court deems just

and proper.

DATED: May 28, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP

By:

31

Attorneys for Plaintiff Hooked Media Group, Inc.


1 JURY DEMAND

2 Plaintiff Hooked Media Group, Inc. hereby demands trial by a jury on all issues herein so

3 triable.

4 DATED: May 28, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

5 SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP

6

7

8

By: l' ~Aiillder

··· · Attorneys for Plaintiff Hooked Media Group, Inc.

9

0.. 10 ..J ..Ja:~

11 1-o;:: 0(Y) u. ....1 ' u.~

0 0 ~ 12 z ~

~'<!" a:~(J)

ri<C 13 en U w z ~ z ~a: u:: ~ w ~ 14 u. u ::J 0((}0<( s ffi c: 15 :::i dJ 0 0 <Cu ucn z~u 16 ~mZ

~<( ~wff: 17 wz UJZ<(

0ocn

18 (j)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


EXHIBIT A

NON-DISCLOSURE AND INVENTION ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT

California Form

I am already a paid employee of Gamook, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company''). I am making this agreement in consideration of my continued employment by the Company. This agreement applies to the entire period of my employment.

1. Representations and Warranties

1.1 No Conflict with any Other Agreement or Obligation. I represent and warrant that I am not bound by any agreement or arrangement with or duty to any other person that would conflict with this agreement. Except for any obligation descnoed on Exhibit A attached to this agreement, I do not have any non-disclosure, confidentiality, non-competition or other similar obligations to any other person concerning proprietary, secret or confidential information that I learned of during any previous engagement, employment or association nor have I had any obligation to assign contributions or inventions of any kind to any other person. I shall not disclose to the Company or induce the Company to use any proprietary, trade secret or confidential information or material belonging to others, including any other clients.

1.2 No Infringement of Third Party Intellectual Property Rights. I represent and warrant that the Inventions (as defined in Section 3 below) will not infringe any patent, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary right of any third party.

1.3 No Open Source. I represent and warrant that the Inventions will not include any open source software, except with the prior written consent of the Company.

2. Confidential Information

2.1. Definition of Confidential Information. (a) "Confidential Information" means all of the trade secrets, know-how, ideas, business plans, pricing information, the identity of and any information concerning customers or suppliers, computer programs (whether in source code or object code), procedures, processes, strategies, methods, systems, designs, discoveries, inventions, production methods and sources, marketing and sales information, information received from others that the Company is obligated to treat as confidential or proprietary, and any other technical, operating, fmancial and other business information that has commercial value, relating to the Company, its business, potential business, operations or finances, or the business of the Company's affiliates or customers that I have previously or may in the future develop or acquire knowledge of during my work for the Company, or from my colleagues while working for the Company.

2.2. Protection of Confidential Information. I will use the Confidential Information only in the performance of my duties for the Company. I wi11 not disclose the Confidential Information, directly or indirectly, at any time during or after my engagement by the Company except to persons authorized by the Company to receive this information. I will not use the Confidential Information, directly or indirectly, at any time during or after my engagement by the Company, for my personal benefit, for the benefit of any other person or entity, or in any manner adverse to the interests of the Company. I will take all action reasonably necessary to protect the Confidential Information from being disclosed to anyone other than persons authorized by the Company.

2.3 Return of Confidential Information. When my engagement by the Company terminates, I will immediately return or destroy all materials (including without limitation, written or

1

NON~DISCLOSURE AND INVENTION ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT

California Form

I am already a paid employee of Gamook, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"). I am making this agreement in consideration of my continued employment by the Company. This agreement applies to the entire period of my employment.

1. Representations and Warranties

1.1 No Conflict with any Other Agreement or Obligation. I represent and warrant that I am not bound by any agreement or arrangement with or duty to any other person that would conflict with this agreement. Except for any obligation described on Exhibit A attached to this agreement, I do not have any non-disclosure, confidentiality, non-competition or other similar obligations to any other person concerning proprietary, secret or confidential information that I learned of during any previous engagement, employment or association nor have I had any obligation to assign contributions or inventions of any kind to any other person. I shall not disclose to the Company or induce the Company to use any proprietary, trade secret or confidential information or material belonging to others, including any other clients.

1.2 No Infringement of Third Party Intellectual Property Rights. I represent and warrant that the Inventions (as defined in Section 3 below) will not infringe any patent, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary right of any third party.

1.3 No Open Source. I represent and warrant that the Inventions will not include any open source software, except with the prior written consent of the Company.

2. Confidential Information

2.1. Definition of Confidential Information. (a) "Confidential Information" means a11 of the trade secrets, know-how, ideas, business plans, pricing information, the identity of and any information concerning customers or suppliers, computer programs (whether in source code or object code), procedures, processes, strategies, methods, systems, designs, discoveries, inventions, production methods and sources, marketing and sales information, information received from others that the Company is obligated to treat as confidential or proprietary, and any other technical, operating, fmancial and other business information that has commercial value, relating to the Company, its business, potential business, operations or finances, or the business of the Company's affiliates or customers that I have previously or may in the future develop or acquire knowledge of during my work for the Company, or from my colleagues while working for the Company.

2.2. Protection of Confidential Information. I will use the Confidential Information only in the performance of my duties for the Company. I will not disclose the Confidential Information, directly or indirectly, at any time during or after my engagement by the Comp~y except to persons authorized by the Company to receive this information. I will not use the Confidential Information, directly or indirectly, at any time during or after my engagement by the Company, for my personal benefit, for the benefit of any other person or entity, or in any manner adverse to the interests of the Company. I will take all action reasonably necessary to protect the Confidential Information from being disclosed to anyone other than persons authorized by the Company.

2.3 Return of Confidential Information. When my engagement by the Company terminates, I will immediately return or destroy all materials (including without limitation, written or

1

printed documents, email and computer disks or tapes, whether machine or user readable, computer memory, and other information reduced to any recorded format or medium) containing, summarizing, abstracting or in any way relating to the Confidential Information. At the time I return these materials I will acknowledge to the Company, in writing and under oath, in the form attached as Exhibit C, that I have complied with the terms of this agreement

3. Inventions

3.1. Definition of Inventions. The term "Inventions" means:

(a) contributions and inventions, discoveries, creations, developments, improvements, works of authorship and ideas (whether or not they are patentable or copyrightable) of any kind that are conceived, created, developed or reduced to practice by me, alone or with others, while I am engaged by the Company that are either: (i) conceived during regular working hours or at my place of work, whether located at Company, affiliate or customer facilities, or at my own facilities; or (ii) conceived, regardless of whether they are conceived or made during regular working hours or at my place of work, that directly or indirectly relate to the Company's business or potential business, result from tasks assigned to me by the Company or that are conceived or made with the use of the Company's resources, facilities or materials; and

(b) any and all patents, patent applications, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, domain names and other intellectual property rights, worldwide, with respect to any of the foregoing.

(c) The term "Inventions" does not include any invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility or trade secret information of the Company was used and which was developed entirely on my own time, unless (i) the invention related to (A) the Company's business, or (B) the Company's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (ii) the invention results from any work performed by me for the Company.

3.2 All Inventions are Exclusively the Property of the Company. (a) I will promptly disclose all Inventions, in fuU detail, to persons authorized by the Company. I will not disclose any Invention to anyone other than persons authorized by the Company, without the Company's express prior written instruction to do so.

(b) I agree that all Inventions which I make, conceive, reduce to practice or develop (in whole or in part, either alone or jointly with others) during my employment shall be the sole property of the Company to the maximum extent permitted by Section 2870 of the California Labor Code, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D. This assignment shall not extend to Inventions, the assignment of which is prohibited by Labor Code Section 2870. The Company shall be the sole owner of all patents, copyrights and other intellectual property or other rights in connection therewith. I further acknowledge and agree that such Inventions, including any computer programs, programming documentation, and other works of authorship, are "works made for hire" for purposes of the Company's rights under copyright laws. I hereby assign to the Company any rights I may have or acquire in such Inventions. At any time during or after my engagement by the Company that the Company requests, I will sign whatever written documents of assignment are necessary to formally evidence my irrevocable assignment to the Company of any Invention.

(c) At all times during or after my engagement by the Company I will assist the Company in obtaining, maintaining and renewing patent, copyright, trademark and other appropriate protection for any Invention, in the United States and in any other country, at the Company's expense.

2

3.3. Excluded Information. On Exhibit B attached to this agreement I have included a complete list, with non-confidential descriptions, of any inventions, ideas, reports and other creative works that I made or conceived prior to my engagement by the Company (collectively, the "Excluded Information"). I intend that the items on that list and only the items on that list shall be excluded from the restrictions set forth in this agreement. I will not assert any right, title or interest in or to any Invention or claim that I made, conceived or acquired any Invention before my engagement by the Company unless I have specifically identified that Invention on the attached Exhibit B. In the event that any Excluded Information is incorporated into any Invention, I hereby grant Company a perpetual, worldwide, royalty free, non-exclusive license to use and reproduce the Excluded Information for commercial, internal business and all other purposes.

4. Non-Solicitation. I agree that during the period beginning on the initial date of my engagement with the Company and ending one (1) year after termination of my engagement with the Company for any reason, I will not directly or indirectly, whether as owner, sole proprietor, partner, shareholder, director, member, consultant, agent, founder, co-venture partner or otherwise, (i) do anything to divert or attempt to divert from the Company any business of any kind, including, without limitation, solicit or interfere with any of the Company's customers, clients, members, business partners or suppliers, or (ii) solicit, induce, recruit or encourage any person engaged by the Company to terminate his or her engagement.

5. Options and Restricted Stock. The Company may grant you options to purchase shares of common stock or shares of restricted stock pursuant to a stock option grant agreement or award agreement, as applicable, under the Company's 2008 Equity Incentive Plan. Options and shares of restricted stock shall only be granted if approved by the Company's board of directors. Options shall be issued at a per share exercise price equal to the fair market value of one share of the Company's common stock as of the date of grant as determined by the board of directors.

6. Miscellaneous.

6.1 Interpretation and Scope of this Agreement. (a) Each provision of this agreement shall be interpreted on its own. If any provision is held to be unenforceable as written, it shall be enforced to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law.

(b) I understand and agree that if I breach or threaten to breach any of the provisions of this agreement the Company would suffer immediate and irreparable harm and that monetary damages would be an inadequate remedy. I agree that, in the event of my breach or threatened breach of any of the provisions of this agreement, the Company shall have the right to seek relief from a court to restrain me from using or disclosing Company Confidential Information or Inventions or otherwise violating the provisions of this agreement.

(c) The validity, construction and effect of this agreement and all extensions, modifications and amendments of this agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to the principles of conflicts of laws or choice of law of that State. I hereby irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in California for any such claims that directly or indirectly arise out of or relate to this agreement, and hereby waive any objections to the laying of venue in such courts.

6.2 Captions. The captions and section headings in this agreement are included solely for convenience of reference and are not intended to affect the interpretation of any provision of this agreement.

3

6.3. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original agreement, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

[Signatures on following page]

4

Signature pages attached separately

EXH1BIT A

Obligations to Other Persons: [Securely attach additional pages if necessary]

6

EXIITBITB Excluded Information: [Securely attach additional pages if necessary]

7

EXID.BITC Form of Acknowledgment

My engagement as an employee to Gamook, Inc. (the "Company") is now terminated. I have reviewed my Non-Disclosure and Invention Assignment Agreement with the Company, dated _______ __, 200 _(the "Agreement''), and I swear, under oath, that:

• I have complied and will continue to comply with all of the provisions of the Agreement.

• I understand that all of the Company's materials (including without limitation, written or printed documents,· email and computer disks or tapes, whether machine or user readable, computer memory, and other information reduced to any recorded format or medium), whether or not they contain Confidential Information (as that phrase is defined in the Agreement), are and remain the property of the Company. I have delivered to authorized Company personnel, or have destroyed, all of those documents and all other Company materials in my possession.

Signature

Name (please print clearly)

Address

STATE OF ____ _ ) ) ss.:

COUNTY OF _____ ~

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this __ day of ____, before me, the subscriber, a notary public of the State of personally appeared _________ ___, who being by me duly sworn on his oath, deposed and made proof to my satisfaction that (s)he is the person named in the within instrument, to whom I first made known the contents thereof, and thereupon (s)he acknowledged that (s)he signed, sealed and delivered the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein expressed.

[SEAL] Notary Public

8

EXHIBITD Section 2870 of the California Labor Code

(a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:

• (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or

• (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

9

EXHIBITB

By signing this agreement below, (1) I agree to be bound by each of its terms, (2) I acknowledge that I have read and understand this agreement and the important restrictions it imposes upon me, and (3) I have bad an opportunity to consult with legal counsel of my own choosing to review this agreement.

WITNEssAr ~ By: ~~~vt~

OJ =~ Name: l.J • .<;" 0 1> ftl Name: ~}C?.ASt}cftiil. Ve-N~~

Address: f121 fm..Se-M. grr~ qt-..5:1..5" $Jw &Acl Cl!.$ en CA= '1'-'f:-t o7

Date:~fre.!.._r_'V_Lf-l-[ O_<i __ _ Date: ·ott lcz.q I~ 2"

Accepted by Company: Gamook, Inc.

By: ___________ _

Name: __________ _

Title: ___________ _

Date: ___________ _

5

Documents

Hooked Media v Apple