Christopher Ricci, former deputy general counsel for Flextronics AP LLC, has petitioned a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that he transferred company patents to a startup he co-founded, AutoConnect, prior to his departure from Flex in 2015. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses Ricci of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. ([dockets.justia.com](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5%3A2026cv00117/462157?utm_source=openai))
Flextronics AP LLC, the San Jose-based subsidiary of Singapore’s Flex Ltd., contends that Ricci, while serving as the company’s lead intellectual property attorney, clandestinely co-founded AutoConnect in 2015. The company alleges that Ricci facilitated the transfer of Flex’s patents to AutoConnect under terms that were disproportionately favorable to the startup. Subsequently, AutoConnect initiated patent infringement lawsuits against several of Flex’s clients, including Ford, General Motors, and Toyota. Notably, some of these patents pertain to Ford’s SYNC voice-activated entertainment system, components of which were supplied by Flex. ([linkedin.com](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alm-corporate-counsel_the-san-jose-california-based-arm-of-singapore-activity-7417254468322447360-vElN?utm_source=openai))
Flex asserts that it remained unaware of Ricci’s involvement with AutoConnect until 2025, during the discovery phase of the patent infringement cases involving GM and Toyota. The discovery process revealed documentation indicating Ricci’s co-founding role in AutoConnect, thereby placing him on both sides of the patent transfer agreement. Flex argues that this arrangement resulted in terms that were “unreasonably favorable to AutoConnect.” ([linkedin.com](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alm-corporate-counsel_the-san-jose-california-based-arm-of-singapore-activity-7417254468322447360-vElN?utm_source=openai))
In response, Ricci has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, though the specific grounds for this motion have not been publicly disclosed. Reached by phone, Ricci stated he was not aware of Flex’s lawsuit against him and declined to comment further. ([linkedin.com](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alm-corporate-counsel_the-san-jose-california-based-arm-of-singapore-activity-7417254468322447360-vElN?utm_source=openai))
The case, titled “Flextronics AP, LLC v. Ricci,” was filed on January 6, 2026, under case number 5:2026cv00117. The nature of the suit is categorized as “Other Fraud,” with the cause of action cited as 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty. ([dockets.justia.com](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5%3A2026cv00117/462157?utm_source=openai))
As the legal proceedings unfold, the case underscores the critical importance of transparency and adherence to fiduciary duties within corporate legal departments, particularly concerning intellectual property management and potential conflicts of interest.