VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE EXHIBIT 9 TO INTEL’S 10 INTEL CORPORATION, AMENDED ANSWER UNDER SEAL AND TO CONSIDER WHETHER 11 Defendant. ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED 12 [Re: ECF Nos. 331, 332, 335, 336] 13

14 Before the Court are Defendant Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) (1) Administrative Motions to 15 File Exhibit 9 to its Amended Answer Under Seal, ECF Nos. 331, 335, and (2) Administrative 16 Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, ECF Nos. 332, 336. 17 Finjan LLC (“Finjan”) submitted declarations in support of the Administrative Motions at ECF Nos. 18 332 and 336. See ECF Nos. 337, 338. All four motions pertain to a patent licensing agreement (the 19 “Agreement”) between Intel and Finjan that Intel attached as Exhibit 9 to its amended answer. See 20 ECF No. 334. Intel seeks to seal portions of the Agreement that were not previously made public 21 in a separate litigation. See, e.g., ECF No. 331 at 1. Finjan seeks to have the same portions sealed. 22 See ECF Nos. 337, 338. Having reviewed Intel and Finjan’s submissions and applicable sealing 23 law, the Court GRANTS the Administrative Motions. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 26 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 27 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 1 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor 2 of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 3 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 4 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially 5 related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with 6 “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 7 disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); see 8 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records 9 generally exist “when such ‘court files might … become a vehicle for improper purposes,’” 10 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), such as: “to gratify private spite, 11 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements,” id.; to “release trade secrets,” id.; or “as 12 sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto 13 Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact 14 that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 15 further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d 16 at 1179. Further, “[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated 17 reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 19 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the sealing motion to include “a specific statement of the 20 applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an 21 explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that 22 will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” 23 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), for any document a party seeks to 24 seal because that document has been designated as confidential by another party or non-party, the 25 filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material 26 Should Be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the Designating Party 27 must file a statement and/or declaration” to support that the document(s) at issue are sealable. Il. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The basis of Intel and Finjan’s requests is that 2 the portions of the Agreement sought to be sealed contain non-public information, including the 3 types of patents licensed and the financial terms of the agreement. See ECF No. 331 at 1; 4 ECF No. 335 at 1, ECF No. 337 § 4; ECF No. 338 4 4. Intel and Finjan assert that public disclosure 5 of the information could negatively impact their ability to negotiate for future licenses and 6 settlements. See ECF No. 331 at 1; ECF No. 335 at 1, ECF No. 337 9 5; ECF No. 338 □ 5. 7 The Court finds that Intel and Finjan’s requests are compelling given the sensitive financial 8 and business information contained in the non-public portions of the Agreement. See, e.g., In re 9 Electronic Arts, Inc.,298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding district court erred in denying 10 motion to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” in a license 11 agreement); Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., No. C 11-6121 CW, 2012 US. Dist. 12 LEXIS 75831, at **4—-5 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2012) (finding compelling reasons to seal license 13 agreement containing “proprietary and confidential information, including provisions regarding the 14 calculation, payment, and amount of royalties [paid] on licensed products”). Accordingly, the Court 15 finds that Intel and Finjan have met the burden to show that the non-public portions of the 16 Agreement at issue can be filed under seal. 17 Il. ORDER Z 18 According to the above reasoning, Intel’s administrative motions are hereby GRANTED. 19 The Court DIRECTS Intel to file a redacted copy of the Agreement publicly on or before December 20 29, 2021. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: December 22, 2021 24 NV 25 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 36 United States District Judge 27 28