In City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 375, the California Supreme Court considered the question "whether an agreement to develop, patent, and commercially exploit a secret scientific discovery in exchange for the payment of royalties is the type of relationship" which creates a fiduciary relationship as a matter of law. (Id. at p. 386.) The court concluded that the trial court had "erred in instructing the jury that a fiduciary relationship is necessarily created when a party, in return for royalties, entrusts a secret idea to another to develop, patent, and commercially develop." (Id. at p. 392, ) The court noted that this contract had been executed by "two sophisticated parties of substantial bargaining power," both of whom were represented by counsel throughout the negotiations. (Id. at p. 389.) The contract itself "stated that, in return for the payment of royalties to City of Hope, Genentech was to be the sole owner of patents it would obtain for City of Hope's scientific discovery of synthetic DNA; that Genentech could assign and transfer its contractual rights, including patents; and that the parties' relationship was not one involving agency, joint venture, or partnership, which are categories in which fiduciary obligations are imposed by operation of law , but that City of Hope was to be an independent contractor." (Ibid.) In other words, "fiduciary obligations are not necessarily created when one party entrusts valuable intellectual property to another for commercial development in exchange for the payment of compensation contingent on commercial success. The secrecy of information provided by one party to another -- here the scientific discovery by City of Hope -- may be considered by the trier of fact in deciding whether a fiduciary relationship exists, but it does not compel the imposition of fiduciary duties by operation of law." (Id. at p. 391.)