Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC

Opinion

APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DEMARAY LLC, Re: ECF Nos. 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, Defendant. 223, 256, 257, 275, 276, 288

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Applied Materials, Inc.’s (“Applied”) and Defendant Demaray LLC’s (“Demaray”) administrative motions to file under seal documents in connection with briefing on Applied’s motion for summary judgment and claim construction. ECF Nos. 205–10, 223, 256–57, 275–76, 288. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions. A party seeking to seal judicial records related to a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary judgment, must demonstrate that “compelling reasons” support its request. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 25 F.4th 1018, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). Compelling reasons include preventing the release of trade secrets, id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179), and keeping as private “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Courts in this District are split on whether the “compelling reasons” standard also applies to requests to seal materials related to claim construction. Some apply the “compelling reasons” standard because “the court’s construction of the terms of the patent claim is often critical to the outcome of such a suit.” Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., No. 16-CV-00119-HSG, 2017 WL 11527607, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2017) (quoting Miotox LLC v. Allergan, Inc., No. 214CV08723ODWPJWX, 2016 WL 3176557, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2016)). Others have applied the lower “good cause” standard because claim construction is non-dispositive. Symantec Corp. v. Acronis, Inc., No. 12-CV-05331-JST, 2013 WL 5913756, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2013). However, subsequent to Symantec’s decision to apply the “good cause” standard, the Ninth Circuit clarified that the choice of standard “does not merely depend on whether the motion is technically ‘dispositive.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Rather, the choice “will turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id. As claim construction is “often critical to the outcome” of a patent suit, Synchronoss, 2017 WL 11527607, at *2 (citation omitted), the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. II. MOTIONS TO SEAL MATERIAL RELATED TO APPLIED’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 205–10) The Court finds that much of the information sought to be sealed consists of confidential product information or constitutes sensitive information about customer relationships. There are compelling reasons to seal such information because its public release may harm the competitive standing of the parties and third parties who provided the information. However, three categories of information sought to be sealed do not meet the high bar of “compelling reasons.” First, the parties and non-parties who initially designated as confidential certain information in the Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts as well as Exhibits 12, 15, 16, 25, 26, 31, and 39 to Applied’s motion for summary judgment do not seek to maintain that information under seal. Second, Applied proposes certain redactions to its motion for summary judgment and Exhibit 31 to that motion—namely, portions of those documents describing the extent of discovery taken to date, and stale information regarding prior exposure to the patents-in- suit—solely because that information “may be interpreted to accuse Applied of wrongdoing that is not only untrue, but also may mislead the public . . . to believe that Applied has committed the alleged wrongdoing.” Pl.’s Admin. Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 210, at 1, 6. In other words, Applied seeks to seal this information to avoid embarrassment, a justification that does not clear the bar for sealing. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Finally, Applied seeks to apply redactions to Exhibit 39 to its motion for summary judgment, a transcript of proceedings in open court. Such proceedings are public, so sealing is not warranted. Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence

210 Applied’s Motion for Summary ECF No. 210-1 DENIED as to Judgment 2:9, 15:5, 23:25– 26 because the Proposed redactions covering Applied’s proposed confidential information at: 2:9; 2:11– redactions cover 12; 2:14–15; 6:9; 6:11–7:1; 7:7–8; 7:10– legal arguments 15; 7:17–28; 8:8–10; 8:13; 8:24–26; and do not include 9:12–13; 9:22–28; 10:4–7; 13:3–8; proprietary details 13:12–15; 13:23–25; 14:5–8; 14:12; of Applied’s 14:17–20; 15:5–11; 15:14–17; 15:20– chambers. 22; 16:5; 16:7–17:1; 17:10; 17:12–15; 17:23–25; 18:1–2; 18:15–16; 18:22; DENIED as to 19:5–12; 19:14–15; 19:17–20; 19:22– 13:3–8, 13:12–13, 23; 19:25–28; 20:2–3; 20:12–14; 20:23– 14:17–18 because 25; 21:2–3; 23:19–21; 23:25–26, Fns. 1, there are no 5, 11–12. compelling reasons to seal general descriptions of discovery produced during litigation. Otherwise GRANTED. 207 Applied’s Motion for Summary ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. Judgment Proposed redactions covering Advanced Energy Industries, Inc’s (“AEI”) Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence confidential information at: Pages 7–10, 15, 16–22. 210 Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: ¶¶ 12–15, 17–22 207 Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts ECF No. 231-1 DENIED as to ¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 18, Proposed redactions covering AEI’s and the portion of ¶ 22 citing to confidential information at: ¶¶ 14–18, 22 Exhibit 12 because AEI does not seek to seal this material. Otherwise GRANTED, including the portion of ¶ 22 citing to Exhibit 11. 210 Exhibit 1 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (10/28/2022 Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276 excerpt) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: Pages 1, 4, 23–25, 27–31. 210 Exhibit 2 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (10/28/2022 Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657 excerpt) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 1, 4, 20–23 207 Exhibit 11 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (12/15/2022 Josh Pankratz deposition transcript excerpt) Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence 207 Exhibit 12 to Applied’s Motion for N/A DENIED because Summary Judgment (AMAT- AEI does not seek to seal this DEM_0000431) material. 210 Exhibit 13 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (2/9/2021 Keith Miller deposition transcript excerpt) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 97:1–2; 97:3–9; 97:11–14; 97:16; 97:18–21; 97:23–25; 101:1–8; 101:10–14; 101:16; 101:18–20; 101:22–102:6; 102:8–12; 102:14–16; 102:18–22; 102:24–103:21; 103:23–25; 138:6; 140:18–24; 141:8– 12; 141:15–16; 141:22–142:14; 148:2– 5; 148:7–16; 148:18; 148:20–24; 201:1– 7; 201:10–16; 201:18–20; 201:22–25; 202:3–22; 203:5–6; 203:16–204:6; 204:9–20; 204:23–25 207 Exhibit 13 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (2/9/2021 Keith Miller deposition transcript excerpt) Proposed redactions covering AEI’s confidential information at: 138:13–15; 138:18–140:17; 140:25–141:7. 207 Exhibit 14 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0002175) 207 Exhibit 15 to Applied’s Motion for N/A DENIED because Summary Judgment (AE_000714) AEI does not seek to seal this material. 210 Exhibit 16 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (10/7/2022 AMAT 2nd Suppl. Responses to Demaray 1st ROGs (1-10)) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 8:21–25; 10:14–27; 11:12–15; 11:18-23; 12:1- Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence 14:6, 14:9-17:1; 17:4-18:1; 18:3-20; 18:22-24; 19:1-20:18; 20:20-28; 21:6-9; 21:12-28:5; 28:7-8; 28:10-12; 28:18-22; 29:1-30:18; 30:20-21; 30:24-25; 31:2-3; 31:8-32:22; 32:25-26; 33:6-34:7; 34:9; 34:11-12; 34:17-35:2; 35:4-7; 35:10-11; 35:14; 35:16-36:22; 36:24-37:16; 37:20- 38:12; 38:14-15; 38:17-19; 38:21-22; 38:27-39:3; 39:6-41:26; 42:1, fns. 1–6 207 Exhibit 16 to Applied’s Motion for N/A DENIED because Summary Judgment (10/7/2022 AMAT AEI does not seek to seal this 2nd Suppl. Responses to Demaray 1st material. ROGs (1-10)) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 17:1–6. 208 Exhibit 16 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 238-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (10/7/2022 AMAT 2nd Suppl. Responses to Demaray 1st ROGs (1-10)) Proposed redactions covering Comet Technologies USA Inc.’s confidential information at: 17:1–15–18:1; 18:3–20. 210 Exhibit 17 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0013168) 210 Exhibit 18 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0015437) 210 Exhibit 19 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0012054) 210 Exhibit 20 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0011890) Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence 210 Exhibit 21 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0011713) 210 Exhibit 22 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0015383) 210 Exhibit 23 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0015240) 210 Exhibit 24 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0015236) 207 Exhibit 25 to Applied’s Motion for N/A DENIED because Summary Judgment (AMAT- AEI does not seek to seal this DEM_0000187) material. 207 Exhibit 26 to Applied’s Motion for N/A DENIED because Summary Judgment (AMAT- AEI does not seek to seal this DEM_NDCA_00003951) material. 209 Exhibit 27 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 236 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (1/5/2023 William Krupke deposition transcript excerpt) Proposed redactions covering Demaray’s confidential material at: 86:18; 86:22–23; 87:23–24; 88:5–6. 209 Exhibit 28 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 236 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (3/20/2023– 3/21/2023 Ernest Demaray rough deposition transcript excerpt) 210 Exhibit 29 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (1/4/2023 Demaray 2nd Am. Final Infringement Contentions [Samsung]) Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: Ex. A at 5; Ex. B at 4. 206 Exhibit 29 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 234-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (1/4/2023 Demaray 2nd Am. Final Infringement Contentions [Samsung]) Proposed redactions covering Samsung’s confidential information at: Exhibit A, Pages 4–5, and Exhibit B, Page 4 210 Exhibit 30 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (2/9/2023 Demaray's Third Am. Final Infringement Contentions [Intel]) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: Ex. A at 5; Ex. B at 4. 205 Exhibit 30 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 235-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (2/9/2023 Demaray's Third Am. Final Infringement Contentions [Intel]) Proposed redactions covering Intel’s confidential information at: Exhibit A, Page 5, and Exhibit B, Page 4 210 Exhibit 31 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 DENIED as to Summary Judgment (10/28/2022 12:16–18 because there are no Demaray's Infringement Contentions [Applied]) compelling reasons to seal Proposed redactions covering Applied’s s tale information. confidential information at: 3:26–27, Otherwise 4:5, 7:27, 8:17, 8:26–27; 9:21–22; GRANTED. 10:17–18; 12:16–18; 13:12–13; 13:15– 18; 13:20–22. 209 Exhibit 31 to Applied’s Motion for N/A DENIED because Summary Judgment (10/28/2022 Demaray does not Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence Demaray's Infringement Contentions seek to seal this [Applied]) material. Proposed redactions covering Demaray’s confidential information at: Page 12 210 Exhibit 33 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0002517)

210 Exhibit 34 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (2/23/2023 Miller Declaration ISO Motion for Summary Judgment) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 1:15-16, 1:18–28; 2:1–8; 2:15–3:3 207 Exhibit 34 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (2/23/2023 Miller Declaration ISO Motion for Summary Judgment) Proposed redactions covering AEI’s confidential information at: 2:2; 2:6–7; 2:9–15. 210 Exhibit 35 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0004787) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: ¶¶ 3–12 210 Exhibit 36 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0013168) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: ¶¶ 3–8 Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence 210 Exhibit 39 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 DENIED because Summary Judgment (8/9/2022 D. Colo. the statements were made in open Hearing Transcript Demaray v. Advanced Energy) court. Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 8:1–3 207 Exhibit 39 to Applied’s Motion for N/A DENIED because Summary Judgment (8/9/2022 D. Colo. the statements Hearing Transcript Demaray v. were made in open court and AEI Advanced Energy) does not seek to seal this material. Proposed redactions covering AEI’s confidential information at: 8:19–20; 8:24; 9:15–16; 18:15–17; 21:14–17. 207 Exhibit 40 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0022222) 210 Exhibit 41 to Applied’s Motion for ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment (AMAT- DEM_0025315) III. MOTIONS TO SEAL MATERIAL RELATED TO DEMARAY’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 256–57) The Court again finds that much of the information sought to be sealed consists of confidential product information and that there are compelling reasons to seal such information because public release of such information may harm the competitive standing of the parties and third parties who provided the information. Nonetheless, the sealing of several documents is not justified at this point because, inter alia, the proposed sealing is not narrowly tailored, the proposed sealing covers general scientific principles rather than proprietary information, or the proposed sealing discusses discovery efforts without revealing proprietary information. Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence 256 Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for ECF No. 267-1 DENIED as to Summary Judgment 1:16–18, 8 n.7, 17:20–21, 18:5, Proposed redactions covering Applied’s 18:7–9, 23:17 because the confidential information at: 1–3, 5, 8– proposed 12, 13, 16–21, 23–24 redactions cover attorney argument, not proprietary details of Applied’s chambers.

DENIED as to 8:21–25, 9:1–10:2, 20:17–22, 20:24– 26 because it appears that these lines discuss the general science of PVD chambers and the proposed redactions are not narrowly tailored to Applied’s proprietary technology. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions.

DENIED as to 2:9, 2:13, 13:26– 27, 17:12–13, 17:23–24, 20:10– 14, 23:13, 23:15– 16, 23:23–24, 23:26, 24:2–24 because there are no compelling reasons to seal general descriptions of discovery efforts and the proposed Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence redactions are not narrowly tailored to Applied’s proprietary technology. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions.

Otherwise GRANTED. 257 Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for ECF No. 266-1 DENIED as to the Summary Judgment proposed redactions on page 17 because Proposed redactions covering AEI’s descriptions of confidential information at: 10–11, 15– preparation for a 17, 23 deposition are not proprietary information satisfying the “compelling reasons” standard. DENIED as to 23:8–9, 23:11 because there are no compelling reasons to seal general descriptions of discovery efforts.

Otherwise GRANTED. 256 Ex. 6 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because Motion for Summary Judgment (2022- sealing of the entire document is 10-07 AMAT Responses to Demaray 1st RFIs (1-2)) not narrowly tailored to protect Applied’s proprietary information. Applied may Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 256 Ex. 7 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because Motion for Summary Judgment sealing of the entire document is (2/24/2023 email between counsel) not narrowly tailored to protect Applied’s proprietary information. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 256 Ex. 10 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (10/28/2022 Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276 excerpt)

256 Ex. 11 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM-SC_000004) 256 Ex. 12 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0028695) 256 Ex. 13 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because Motion for Summary Judgment this is AEI’s (AMAT-DEM_0000431) document, not Applied’s document, and AEI does not seek to seal this document. Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence 257 Ex. 13 to Demaray’s Opposition to N/A DENIED because Motion for Summary Judgment AEI does not seek (AMAT-DEM_0000431) to seal this document. 256 Ex. 14 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 This is an AEI Motion for Summary Judgment document, so (AMAT-DEM_0002175) Applied is not entitled to seek sealing of the document. However, AEI also sought sealing, and that request is GRANTED. 257 Ex. 14 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 266-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0002175) 256 Ex. 15 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0002218) 256 Ex. 16 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0011751)

256 Ex. 17 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 This is an AEI Motion for Summary Judgment document, so (AMAT-DEM_0022194) Applied is not entitled to seek sealing of the document. However, AEI also sought sealing, and that request is GRANTED. 257 Ex. 17 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 266-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0022194) 256 Ex. 18 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 This is an AEI Motion for Summary Judgment document, so (AMAT-DEM_0022222) Applied is not entitled to seek sealing of the Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence document. However, AEI also sought sealing, and that request is GRANTED. 257 Ex. 18 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 266-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0022222) 256 Ex. 19 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because Motion for Summary Judgment this document (AMAT-DEM_0022763) appears to contain a third party’s confidential information, not Applied’s confidential information, and that third party has not sought sealing. 256 Ex. 20 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0028604) 256 Ex. 21 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0031685)

256 Ex. 22 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0071308) 256 Ex. 23 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_NDCA_00008102)

256 Ex. 24 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_NDCA_00009649)

256 Ex. 25 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0015240) Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence

256 Ex. 26 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0022697) 256 Ex. 28 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because Motion for Summary Judgment the sealing request (3/16/2023 John Forster deposition is not narrowly transcript excerpt) tailored, and the substantive deposition testimony appears to discuss the general science of PVD chambers rather than Applied’s proprietary technology. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 257 Ex. 29 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 266-1 DENIED because Motion for Summary Judgment the sealing request ((12/15/2022 Josh Pankratz deposition is not narrowly transcript excerpt) tailored. AEI may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 256 Ex. 30 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment (2/9/2021 Keith Miller deposition transcript excerpt) 256 Ex. 31 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because Motion for Summary Judgment the sealing request (3/23/2023 Keith Miller deposition is not narrowly tailored. Applied Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence transcript excerpt) may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 256 Ex. 32 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because Motion for Summary Judgment the sealing request is not narrowly (4/24/2023 Giapis Declaration) tailored. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 256 Ex. 35 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because Motion for Summary Judgment the sealing request (4/11/2023 Ken Smyth deposition is not narrowly tailored, and the excerpt) substantive deposition testimony appears to discuss the general science of PVD chambers rather than Applied’s proprietary technology. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. IV. MOTIONS TO SEAL MATERIALS RELATED TO APPLIED’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 275–76) While much of Applied’s Reply is sealable, attorney argument characterizing the claims at issue and the prior art are not. Likewise, as noted above, general descriptions of discovery efforts that do not reveal proprietary information are not sealable. Finally, excerpts from the transcript of the Markman hearing in this case are not sealable because the hearing was open to the public, and neither party requested redactions of the transcript within five days of the filing of the transcript. See ECF No. 265. Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence

275 Applied’s Reply ISO Motion for ECF No. 275-1 DENIED as to Summary Judgment Table of Contents IV.A, 2:9–10, 2:26, 3:13–14, Proposed redactions covering Applied’s 3:22–24, 4:2–3, confidential information redacted at: 5:13–14, 5:16–17, Table of Contents; 1:2–4; 1:6–7; 1:9– 6:6–7, 6:27–28, 12; 1:15–16; 1:24; 1:26; 2:9–10; 2:13– 7:2, 7:5–6, Page 7 15; 2:21–26; 3:1; 3:3–4; 3:11–14; 3:21– Subheading IV.A, 26; 4:2–3; 5:13–18; 6:6–7; 6:23–28; 7:16–17, 8:2–3, 7:2–8; 7:10–13; 7:15–17; 7:19–28; 8:1– 8:9–10, 9:18, 11:14–15, 11:14– 28; 9:1–7; 9:12–27; 10:1–28; 11:1–17; 15, 11:21, 12:4–5, 11:19; 11:21–28; 12:1; 12:3–5; 12:8–12; 12:17, 15:17, 12:17–18; 13:14; 13:22–24; 14:5; 14:8– 15:26–27 because 9; 15:1–4; 15:6; 15:8–18; 15:24–27; the proposed fn.3. redactions cover attorney argument and do not include proprietary details of Applied’s chambers. DENIED as to 12:17, 13:22–24, 14:5, 14:8–9 because the proposed redactions cover attorney argument regarding prior art, not proprietary details of Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence Applied’s chambers.

DENIED as to 8:16, 11:9–10, 11:16, 15:3–4, 15:6, 15:12–14 15:15 because there are no compelling reasons to seal general descriptions of discovery taken or requested. Otherwise GRANTED. 276 Applied’s Reply ISO Motion for ECF No. 283-1 GRANTED. Summary Judgment Proposed redactions covering AEI’s confidential information redacted at: 2:11–12, 3:5–11. 275 Exhibit 1 to Reply ISO Motion for ECF No. 275-1 DENIED because Summary Judgment (excerpts of the Markman hearing was open Markman Hearing Transcript, dated to the public, and April 26, 2023) the parties did not request redaction of the hearing transcript within five days of the filing of the transcript. V. MOTION TO SEAL MATERIAL RELATED TO DEMARAY’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 288) The Court finds that sealing is warranted for Demaray’s sur-reply, except to the extent that the proposed redactions cover pure attorney argument. However, the requests to seal the entirety of Exhibits 42 and 43 are not narrowly tailored and therefore denied. Motion Document or Portion of Documents Supporting Order (ECF No.) Sought to be Sealed Evidence 288 Demaray’s Sur-Reply in Opposition to ECF No. 300-1 DENIED as to Motion for Summary Judgment 5:4–5, 7:17 because the

Proposed redactions covering Applied’s proposed redactions cover confidential information redacted at: legal arguments 1:2–3, 1:5–6, 1:17–22, 2:1, 2:6–7, 2:26– and do not include 27, 3:26–28, 4:1–11, 4:15–17, 4:19–28, proprietary details 5:1–5, 5:7–8, 7:14–17, 7:19–24. of Applied’s chambers.

Otherwise GRANTED. 288 Exhibit 42 to Demaray’s Sur-Reply in ECF No. 300-1 DENIED because Opposition to Motion for Summary sealing of the entire document is Judgment (Proposed Amended not narrowly Infringement Contentions) tailored to protect Applied’s proprietary information. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 288 Exhibit 43 to Demaray’s Sur-Reply in ECF No. 300-1 DENIED because Opposition to Motion for Summary sealing of the Judgment (Proposed Amended entire document is not narrowly Infringement Contentions) tailored to protect Applied’s proprietary information. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions.

1 VI. MOTION TO SEAL MATERIAL RELATED TO APPLIED’S RESPONSIVE 2 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF (ECF NO. 223) 3 Applied seeks to redact two excerpts of claim charts attached to its responsive claim 4 construction brief as Exhibits 13 and 14. The Court finds that the proposed redactions are 5 narrowly tailored to proprietary technical details about Applied’s chambers and that compelling 6 reasons exist for sealing. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Applied’s motion. 7 } V0. CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 9 parties’ motions to seal, without prejudice. Any party or non-party wishing to renew any sealing 10 request shall file a single motion addressing all such documents discussed in this Order for which 11 it seeks to renew its request. Such motions must be filed by July 14, 2023. 12 If no such motions are filed by that deadline, the parties shall file public versions of 13 documents for which the Court denied sealing by July 19, 2023. They shall be filed so that all 14 documents related to a brief are attached to a single docket entry. For example, there shall be a 3 15 single docket entry containing the motion for summary judgment and supporting exhibits, and a a 16 separate docket entry for the opposition and supporting exhibits. 3 17 If any party or non-party files a motion renewing its sealing requests, the parties shall wait 18 to file public versions of documents until all sealing requests regarding the documents discussed in 19 this Order are finally resolved. 21 Dated: July 7, 2023 22 aM EDWARD J. DAVILA 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL