The 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
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