Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Inc.

Filing 150

ORDER RE PARTIES' STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF IMPLICIT'S BRIEF AND EXHIBITS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION ON INVALIDITY 149 in case 3:10-cv-03365-SI; 174 in case 3:10-cv-04234-SI (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12
13

ORDER RE PARTIES’ STIPULATION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF
IMPLICIT’S BRIEF AND EXHIBITS IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION ON INVALIDITY

Plaintiff,

10
11

No. C 10-03365 SI

v.
F5 NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________/

14
15
16
17
18

IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.,

No. C 10-04234 SI

Plaintiff,
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant.

/

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Currently before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to file under seal portions of Implicit’s brief
in opposition to the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Invalidity and Exhibits A & G to
the Hosie Declaration in support thereof. Docket No. 149 in Case No. 10-3365; Docket No. 174 in
Case No. 10-4234.
The Declaration of Spencer Hosie in support of the stipulation and request to file under seal
explains that two portions of the brief in opposition [pages 7-8 and page 16:10-16] should be filed under
seal because they reference material provided under subpoena by third-parties Intel and Sprint and

27

designated as confidential. The Court has reviewed the material at issue and finds that no compelling

28

reason exists to support the requested sealing. The material at issue consists of Intel and Sprint’s

1

reactions to products in development by Implicit and the potential for investment and/or partnership with

2

Implicit in the 1999 to 2001 time frame. Given the nature and age of the information at issue, the Court

3

cannot find that compelling reasons exist to seal the material, much less compelling reasons that

4

outweigh the public’s right of access to judicial records.

5

No mention of Exhibits A or G is made in the Hosie Declaration. The Court, therefore, cannot

6

determine whether all or part of those exhibits should be filed under seal. Therefore, the party whose

7

confidential information is mentioned in Exhibits A or G shall file a supplemental declaration within

8

five days of the date of this Order explaining why compelling reasons exist to seal all or parts of

9

Exhibits A & G to the Hosie Declaration in support of Implicit’s opposition to defendants’ motion for

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

summary judgment on invalidity.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2