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 SEAL 10 INTEL CORPORATION, [Re: ECF Nos. 579, 591] 11 Defendant.
12 13 Before the Court are 1) Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Administrative Motion to File Under 14 Seal Portions of Its Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15-17, 15 19, 20, 22-24, and 40-45 Thereto, ECF No. 579 (“Motion I”); and 2) Intel’s Administrative 16 Motion to File Under Seal Portions of its Reply in Support of Omnibus Daubert Motion to 17 Exclude and/or Strike, ECF No. 591 (“Motion II”). For the reasons discussed below, Intel’s 18 motions filed at ECF No. 579 and ECF No. 591 are GRANTED. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 21 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 23 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 24 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 25 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 26 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 27 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 1 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 2 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 3 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 4 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 5 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 6 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 7 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 8 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 9 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 10 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 11 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 12 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 13 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 The documents at issue in Intel’s motions to seal are associated with its summary judgment 16 and Daubert motions. These opinions concern infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue 17 in the case, available damages for the alleged infringement, and efforts to strike or exclude expert 18 opinions. These issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and 19 therefore the parties must provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. 20 See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 21 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). 22 A. Motion I (ECF No. 579) 23 Intel seeks to seal selected excerpts from its Motion for Summary Judgment and several of 24 the exhibits. Intel argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the material it seeks to seal 25 “because maintaining the confidentiality of the technical information regarding Intel’s product 26 design and operation, including proposed designs, and manufacturing processes is critical to 27 Intel’s business.” ECF No. 579. Intel further explains that “[k]nowledge of this information by 1 business dealings as its competitors could incorporate that information into their own development 2 strategies and products to gain an unfair advantage over Intel in the market.” Id. Intel bolsters 3 these arguments by providing additional details in the declaration of Mark Selwyn. See Selwyn 4 Decl. ¶ 9 (ECF No. 579-1). 5 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 6 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 8 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 9 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 10 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 11 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 12 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 13 ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Intel’s Summary Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 14 Judgment Motion portions contain highly confidential technical information regarding the 15 design and operation of the 16 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 17 Ex. 1 Excerpt of the Expert Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions Report of Dr. Thomas portions contain highly confidential 18 M. Conte, dated April technical information regarding the 19 20, 2023 design and operation of the accused features. Selwyn Decl. 20 ¶¶ 11-12. Ex. 2 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 21 of Dr. Thomas Conte’s portions contain highly confidential July 11, 2023 deposition technical information regarding the 22 design and operation of the 23 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 24 Ex. 8 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions of Arthur Leonard portions contain highly confidential 25 Brown III’s February technical information regarding the 15, 2023 deposition design and operation of the 26 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 27 11-12. Ex. 9 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions February 17, 2023 technical information regarding the 1 deposition design and operation of the 2 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 3 Ex. 10 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions of Tristan Brown’s portions contain highly confidential 4 March 31, 2023 technical information regarding the deposition design and operation of the 5 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 6 11-12. Ex. 15 Excerpt of the Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 7 Supplemented Report of portions contain highly confidential Dr. William Henry technical information regarding the 8 Mangione-Smith, dated design and operation of the May 16, 2023 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 9 11-12. 10 Ex. 16 Excerpt of William Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions Mangione-Smith’s July portions contain highly confidential 11 14, 2023 deposition technical information regarding the design and operation of the 12 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 13 11-12. Ex. 17 Excerpt of the Reply Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 14 Report of Dr. William portions contain highly confidential Henry Mangione-Smith, technical information regarding the 15 dated June 22, 2023 design and operation of the accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 16 11-12. 17 Ex. 19 Excerpt of the Reply Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions Expert Report of Dr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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 SEAL 10 INTEL CORPORATION, [Re: ECF Nos. 579, 591] 11 Defendant.
12 13 Before the Court are 1) Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Administrative Motion to File Under 14 Seal Portions of Its Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15-17, 15 19, 20, 22-24, and 40-45 Thereto, ECF No. 579 (“Motion I”); and 2) Intel’s Administrative 16 Motion to File Under Seal Portions of its Reply in Support of Omnibus Daubert Motion to 17 Exclude and/or Strike, ECF No. 591 (“Motion II”). For the reasons discussed below, Intel’s 18 motions filed at ECF No. 579 and ECF No. 591 are GRANTED. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 21 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 23 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 24 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 25 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 26 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 27 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 1 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 2 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 3 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 4 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 5 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 6 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 7 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 8 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 9 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 10 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 11 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 12 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 13 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 The documents at issue in Intel’s motions to seal are associated with its summary judgment 16 and Daubert motions. These opinions concern infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue 17 in the case, available damages for the alleged infringement, and efforts to strike or exclude expert 18 opinions. These issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and 19 therefore the parties must provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. 20 See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 21 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). 22 A. Motion I (ECF No. 579) 23 Intel seeks to seal selected excerpts from its Motion for Summary Judgment and several of 24 the exhibits. Intel argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the material it seeks to seal 25 “because maintaining the confidentiality of the technical information regarding Intel’s product 26 design and operation, including proposed designs, and manufacturing processes is critical to 27 Intel’s business.” ECF No. 579. Intel further explains that “[k]nowledge of this information by 1 business dealings as its competitors could incorporate that information into their own development 2 strategies and products to gain an unfair advantage over Intel in the market.” Id. Intel bolsters 3 these arguments by providing additional details in the declaration of Mark Selwyn. See Selwyn 4 Decl. ¶ 9 (ECF No. 579-1). 5 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 6 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 8 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 9 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 10 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 11 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 12 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 13 ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Intel’s Summary Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 14 Judgment Motion portions contain highly confidential technical information regarding the 15 design and operation of the 16 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 17 Ex. 1 Excerpt of the Expert Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions Report of Dr. Thomas portions contain highly confidential 18 M. Conte, dated April technical information regarding the 19 20, 2023 design and operation of the accused features. Selwyn Decl. 20 ¶¶ 11-12. Ex. 2 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 21 of Dr. Thomas Conte’s portions contain highly confidential July 11, 2023 deposition technical information regarding the 22 design and operation of the 23 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 24 Ex. 8 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions of Arthur Leonard portions contain highly confidential 25 Brown III’s February technical information regarding the 15, 2023 deposition design and operation of the 26 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 27 11-12. Ex. 9 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions February 17, 2023 technical information regarding the 1 deposition design and operation of the 2 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 3 Ex. 10 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions of Tristan Brown’s portions contain highly confidential 4 March 31, 2023 technical information regarding the deposition design and operation of the 5 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 6 11-12. Ex. 15 Excerpt of the Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 7 Supplemented Report of portions contain highly confidential Dr. William Henry technical information regarding the 8 Mangione-Smith, dated design and operation of the May 16, 2023 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 9 11-12. 10 Ex. 16 Excerpt of William Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions Mangione-Smith’s July portions contain highly confidential 11 14, 2023 deposition technical information regarding the design and operation of the 12 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 13 11-12. Ex. 17 Excerpt of the Reply Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 14 Report of Dr. William portions contain highly confidential Henry Mangione-Smith, technical information regarding the 15 dated June 22, 2023 design and operation of the accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 16 11-12. 17 Ex. 19 Excerpt of the Reply Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions Expert Report of Dr. portions contain highly confidential 18 Thomas M. Conte technical information regarding the Regarding Infringement design and operation of the 19 of the ’836 and ’806 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ Patents, dated June 22, 11-12. 20 2023. 21 Ex. 20 Excerpt of the Rebuttal Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions Expert Report of Alyssa portions contain highly confidential 22 B. Apsel, Ph.D., technical information regarding the Regarding design and operation of the 23 Noninfringement of accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 24 U.S. Patent Nos. 11-12. 7,675,806 and 25 8,004,922, dated June 1, 2023 26 Ex. 22 Excerpt of the Expert Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions Report of Dean P. portions contain highly confidential 27 Neikirk, dated April 20, technical information regarding the accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 1 11-12. 2 Ex. 23 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions of Dean P. Neikirk’s portions contain highly confidential 3 July 21, 2023 deposition technical information regarding the design and operation of the 4 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 5 Ex. 24 Confidential Settlement Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 6 and Patent License portions contain highly confidential Agreement between licensing information that the Court 7 Finjan Software, Inc. has previously sealed. Selwyn and Finjan, Inc. on their Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; Dkt. 339. 8 own behalf and on behalf of their 9 respective Affiliates 10 and Intel Corporation, dated November 20, 11 2012 Ex. 40 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 12 of Gerhard Schrom’s portions contain highly confidential 13 February 10, 2023 technical information regarding the deposition design and operation of the 14 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 15 Ex. 41 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions of Steve Gunther’s portions contain highly confidential 16 February 2, 2023 technical information regarding the 17 deposition design and operation of the accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 18 11-12. Ex. 42 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 19 of Wei-Lun Jen’s portions contain highly confidential August 24, 2022 technical information regarding the 20 deposition design and operation of the 21 accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. 22 Ex. 43 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions of Chris Baldwin’s portions contain highly confidential 23 January 27, 2023 technical information regarding the 24 deposition design and operation of the accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 25 11-12. Ex. 44 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 26 of Doug B. Ingerly’s portions contain highly confidential February 2, 2023 technical information regarding the 27 deposition design and operation of the 11-12. 1 Ex. 45 Excerpt of the transcript Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions 2 of George Shchupak’s portions contain highly confidential March 29, 2023 technical information regarding the 3 deposition design and operation of the accused features. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 4 11-12. 5 B. Motion II (ECF No. 591) 6 Intel seeks to seal selected excerpts from its Reply in Support of Omnibus Daubert Motion 7 to Exclude and/or Strike and several of the exhibits. Intel argues that compelling reasons exist to 8 seal the material it seeks to seal “because maintaining the confidentiality of the technical 9 information regarding Intel’s product design and operation, including proposed designs, and 10 manufacturing processes is critical to Intel’s business.” ECF No. 591. Intel further explains that 11 “[k]nowledge of this information by third parties would put Intel at a competitive disadvantage in 12 future product development and in its business dealings as its competitors could incorporate that 13 information into their own development strategies and products to gain an unfair advantage over 14 Intel in the market.” Id. Intel bolsters these arguments by providing additional details in the 15 declaration of Mark Selwyn. See Selwyn Decl. ¶ 11 (ECF No. 591-1). 16 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 17 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 18 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 19 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 20 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 21 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 22 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 23 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 24 \\ 25 \\ 26 \\ 27 \\ 1 Intel’s Reply Brief In | Green-boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions in 2 Support of Its portions in Section | Section HI at 7:17-18, 20, 23-24 and 3 Omnibus Daubert Il at 7:17-18, 20, | 10:7-8, 9-10, 12 contain highly Motion 23-24 and 10:7-8, | confidential information regarding 4 9-10, 12 Intel’s licenses, including payment terms from Intel’s license 5 Green-boxed agreements, the scope of Intel’s 6 portions in Section | license agreements, and other IV at 14:1-2, 3,6, | confidential licensing information. 7 7, 15-16 Selwyn Decl. J 16. 8 Furthermore, green-boxed portions in Section IV at 14:1-2, 3, 6,7, 15-16 9 contain highly confidential technical 10 information regarding design, development, and operation of Intel’s 11 product features, including proposed designs. Selwyn Decl. ¥ 13. qa 12 Ex. 1 Excerpt of the Green boxed Granted, as green-boxed portions Rebuttal Expert portions contain highly confidential 13 Report of Lauren information regarding Intel’s 14 R. Kindler, dated June licenses, including payment terms 1, 2023 from Intel’s license agreements, the 15 scope of Intel’s license agreements, and other confidential licensing 16 information. Selwyn Decl. { 16. Ex. 3 Excerpt of a Page 2 of the Granted, as green-boxed portions 17 presentation entitled | exhibit contain highly confidential technical 18 Voltage Dependent information regarding design, SRAM Sleep (VDSS) development and operation of Intel’s 19 by Guru Shamanna, as product features, including proposed produced with Bates designs. Selwyn Decl. 4 13. 20 numbers 93799DOC0091475 22 || I. ORDER 23 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Intel’s Motions to Seal at ECF 24 || No. 579 and ECF No. 591 are GRANTED. 25 26 || Dated: September 7, 2023
BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge