Richtek Technology Corporation et al v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation et al

Filing 89

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND TRANSFER ITC RECORD by Judge Alsup granting in part and denying in part 70 Motion to Lift Stay and Transfer ITC Record (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2010)

Richtek Technology Corporation et al v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation et al

Doc. 89

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, and RICHTEK USA, INC., Plaintiffs, v. uPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. / No. C 09-05659 WHA FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND TRANSFER ITC RECORD

A mandatory stay was issued in this action on January 19, 2010, pending the final determination by the United States International Trade Commission ("ITC") in the matter of Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-698 (Dkt. No. 22). On September 15, plaintiffs moved to lift the stay due to the termination of the ITC's investigation on September 9 (Dkt. No. 70). In that same motion, plaintiffs also asked the Court to request a transfer of the ITC's record in the investigation for use in the instant case. Defendants were ordered to file an opposition by September 30. In its filing, defendant uPI Semiconductor Corporation -- the only defendant who filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion -- expressly stated that it did not oppose the request to lift the stay. With respect to transferring the ITC's record in the investigation for use in the instant case, however, uPI Semiconductor pointed out that the ITC's record was subject to a protective order

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(issued by the administrative law judge who presided over the investigation) because it contained confidential business information from the eight respondents in the ITC's investigation. Only two of those respondents, however, are parties in the instant action. The remaining parties in the instant action were not respondents in the ITC's investigation and were therefore non-signatories to the ALJ's protective order. In short, there are at least six ITC respondents who produced confidential business information in the ITC investigation who are not parties to the instant action. These non-parties have not, and may not ever, consent to the transfer of their confidential business information for use in this action. Given these unresolved issues regarding the confidential business information of nonparties in the record of the ITC's investigation, plaintiffs' request for the Court to order the transfer of the ITC's record in the investigation for use in the instant case is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the parties meeting and conferring and proposing a fair and proper way to handle these issues, including crafting a new protective order that addresses the concerns raised herein. As for plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay, that request is GRANTED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2