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 MOTION TO SEAL 10 INTEL CORPORATION, [Re: ECF No. 698] 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 14 Portions of Intel's Opposition to VLSI Technology LLC's Motion for Relief from Nondispositive 15 Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 698 (“Administrative Motion”). For the reasons 16 described below, the Administrative Motion is GRANTED. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On September 27, 2023, Intel filed its Oppositions to VLSI Technology LLC’s (“VLSI”) 19 Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 699 20 (“Opposition”). On the same day, Intel filed an Administrative Motion in connection with the 21 Opposition. ECF No. 698. 22 II. LEGAL STANDARD 23 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 24 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 25 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 26 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 27 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 1 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 2 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 3 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 4 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 The document at issue, Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Motion for Relief, is related to a 7 motion to strike VLSI’s expert opinions related to available damages for the alleged infringement. 8 These issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore Intel 9 must provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto 10 Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 11 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). 12 Intel seeks to seal selected excerpts from its Opposition. Intel explains that “[d]isclosure of 13 information regarding Intel’s financial decisions and Intel’s marketing research and strategies 14 (e.g., Intel’s confidential analysis regarding what features Intel’s customers value, the potential 15 price premiums associated with those features, and how Intel expects certain features to affect the 16 sales of certain products) would provide competitors and potential counterparties with unfair 17 insight into Intel’s business strategies and cost/benefit analyses.” ECF No. 698 at 2. Intel further 18 argues, “[b]ecause of the highly confidential nature of the information Intel seeks to seal and the 19 potential harm that Intel could suffer in competition with other manufacturers, there is no less 20 restrictive alternative to sealing the requested information.” ECF No. 698-1 ¶ 9. 21 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Ruling 22 Exhibit No. Seal 23 Intel’s Green Granted, as green highlighted portions reveal Intel’s Opposition to highlighted confidential analysis regarding what features Intel’s 24 VLSI portions customers value, the potential price premiums Technology associated with those features, and how Intel expects 25 LLC’s Motion certain features to affect the sales of certain products. for Relief From Selwyn Decl. ¶ 8. 26 Nondispositive Pretrial Order of 27 Magistrate Judge 1 IV. ORDER 2 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Intel’s Administrative Motion 3 to Seal (ECF No. 698) is GRANTED. 4 5 Dated: October 16, 2023 ° BETH LABSON FREEMAN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

15 16 & = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28