Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Toshiba Corporation et al

Filing 215

ORDER RE 201 203 DISPUTE OVER "SOURCE CODE" CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATION. Signed by Judge Alsup on 12/20/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS
LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 17-04034 WHA

v.

ORDER RE DISPUTE
OVER “SOURCE CODE”
CONFIDENTIALITY
DESIGNATION

TOSHIBA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA
AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS,
INC., and TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.
/

17
18

This is a dispute between defendants Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Electronic

19

Components, Inc., and Toshiba America, Inc. (collectively, “Toshiba”) and plaintiff Lone Star

20

Silicon Innovations LLC about the proper scope of certain confidentiality designations under

21

our district’s Patent Local Rule 2-2 Interim Model Protective Order (“Protective Order”). The

22

Protective Order provides for three confidentiality designations:

23
24
25
26
27
28

2.2
“CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information
(regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible
things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c).
*

*

*

2.8
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES
ONLY” Information or Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential
Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another Party or
Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that
could not be avoided by less restrictive means.

1
2
3
4
5
6

2.9
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — SOURCE CODE”
Information or Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential
Information or Items” representing computer code and associated
comments and revision histories, formulas, engineering
specifications, or schematics that define or otherwise describe in
detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs,
disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a
substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less
restrictive means.
Toshiba seeks to designate twelve of its process flows and process recipes for making a

7

semiconductor die as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — SOURCE CODE” pursuant to Section

8

2.9 of the Protective Order. These documents — which Toshiba had previously produced to

9

Lone Star while this case was pending in the Eastern District of Texas but clawed back after the
case transferred here — “describe the step-by-step process for making a device from a blank

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

silicon wafer, and . . . set forth particular settings, conditions and/or parameters for a particular

12

step within the process flow.” Toshiba claims these documents are its “crown jewels that can

13

be used in a similar fashion as computer codes in a software case to replicate . . . Toshiba’s

14

semiconductor manufacturing processes.” Although the documents are not “computer code” or

15

“associated with computer code,” Toshiba contends they qualify as “formulas, engineering

16

specifications, or schematics that define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or

17

structure of . . . hardware designs” within the meaning of Section 2.9 (Dkt. No. 201-1 at 2–3).

18

Lone Star agrees that the documents at issue qualify as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL —

19

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under Section 2.8 but disputes that they qualify as “HIGHLY

20

CONFIDENTIAL — SOURCE CODE” under Section 2.9. According to Lone Star, Section

21

2.9 should be read to cover only “computer code” and materials “associated with computer

22

code” (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 203 at 4, 6). This order disagrees. The plain text of Section 2.9 lists

23

“computer code and associated comments and revision histories” as a category separate and

24

apart from “formulas,” “engineering specifications,” and “schematics.” All four categories fall

25

within the scope of “extremely sensitive ‘Confidential Information or Items’” covered by

26

Section 2.9 so long as they “define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of

27

software or hardware designs, disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a

28

substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.” Contrary
2

1

to Lone Star, Section 2.9’s reference to “comments and revision histories” “associated” with

2

computer code does not mean that “formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics” fall

3

under Section 2.9 only if they are also “associated” with computer code.

4

Lone Star claims the security afforded to materials with the “source code” designation

5

makes sense only in light of the “unique nature of computer code and its documentation,” in

6

that anyone “with an off-the-shelf compiler and the software source code . . . could easily

7

replicate and distribute unlimited copies of the software product” (Dkt. No. 203 at 2). In a

8

similar vein, Lone Star cites three other protective orders from other cases that have defined

9

“source code” more narrowly, and protests that expanding the designation beyond computer
code and “associated” materials will make discovery in patent cases unduly burdensome (id. at

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

2–4). None of these arguments are persuasive.

12

First, easy unauthorized copying and distribution is a concern particularly prominent in,

13

but not exclusive to, computer code. It remains conceivable that materials not “associated” with

14

computer code nevertheless describe the details of an easily replicable product in such a manner

15

as to warrant the highest level of confidentiality. Section 2.9 clearly contemplates this

16

possibility, as it defines such materials — regardless of category — by their ability to “define or

17

otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs,

18

disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious

19

harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.” This, combined with the explicit

20

inclusion of “formulas, engineering specifications, [and] schematics” that meet the foregoing

21

criteria, indicates that Section 2.9 encompasses confidentiality concerns both within and

22

without the specific category of computer code and “associated” materials.

23

Second, the three other protective orders cited by Lone Star do not compel a contrary

24

conclusion. For starters, those protective orders from other cases are not the Protective Order at

25

issue here. Moreover, read in context, the passages cited by Lone Star are readily

26

distinguishable. Two specifically defined “source code” and its attendant protections while the

27

third specifically defined “Highly Confidential Code” (Dkt. Nos. 203-2–203-4 (emphasis

28

added)). In contrast, Section 2.9 does not purport to define “code” but instead defines the
3

1

universe of all “extremely sensitive ‘Confidential Information or Items’” that deserve a

2

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — SOURCE CODE” designation. The inclusion of the phrase

3

“source code” in the designation itself does not override the simple fact that the plain text of

4

Section 2.9 contemplates non-source code material that nevertheless deserves protection on par

5

with actual source code.

6

Third, and in a similar vein, Lone Star’s warning that Section 2.9 will render discovery

7

unduly burdensome in patent cases unless limited to computer code and “associated” materials

8

is unfounded. As stated, Section 2.9 does not cover all “formulas, engineering specifications, or

9

schematics” but only those that require protection on par with true source code because they
“define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

designs, disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of

12

serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.” This important limitation is

13

sufficiently stringent to both distinguish Section 2.9 from Section 2.8 (which does not require

14

that designated materials “define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of

15

software or hardware designs”) and avert the practical discovery problems Lone Star envisions.

16

Indeed, neither side offered any evidence that the plain language of Section 2.9 has ever

17

hampered discovery in another patent case in our district.

18

It is therefore unsurprising that the parties have not unearthed any other decision

19

analyzing the issue of whether or not Section 2.9 extends beyond computer code and

20

“associated” materials. During oral argument, counsel for Toshiba pointed to Telebuyer, LLC v.

21

Amazon.com, Inc., No. 13–cv–1677, 2014 WL 5804334 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2014) (Judge

22

Barbara Rothstein), as the closest decision on point. In Telebuyer, Amazon sought a protective

23

order on materials designated as “source code” and proposed defining that term as “computer

24

code and associated comments and revision histories, formulas, engineering specifications, or

25

schematics that define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or

26

hardware designs.” Id. at *3. Telebuyer protested that the definition was overbroad because it

27

encompassed “routinely disclosed documents that have nothing to do with source code.” The

28

district court concluded:
4

1
2
3
4
5
6

[A]t this point in the litigation, Amazon is best qualified to
determine whether these elements actually do relate to source
code. Telebuyer has given the Court no specific reason not to err
on the side of caution when dealing with highly technical
materials.
Furthermore, Amazon’s proposed definition is a verbatim
transcription of the model Stipulated Protective Order for source
code in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. That court has substantial expertise in this area of law,
and its model order reflects the cumulative wisdom of the court
and the bar in that jurisdiction.

7
Ibid. (citation omitted).
8
It would be circuitous for this order to rely on Telebuyer as authoritative in interpreting
9
the Protective Order, given that Telebuyer actually relied on the wording of the Protective Order
10
extent Telebuyer is instructive, however, it cuts against Lone Star and in favor of adhering to
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

(as representing the cumulative experience of our district) in reaching its outcome. To the
11
12
the plain language of the Protective Order. True, Telebuyer arguably suggested that Section 2.9
13
required the materials at issue to be “relate[d] to source code” and apparently conflated the
14
definition of “source code” itself with our definition of materials deserving of protection on par
15
with source code. Significantly, however, Telebuyer nevertheless declined to limit the
16
protection afforded under Section 2.9 to literal computer code, opting instead to “err on the side
17
of caution when dealing with highly technical materials.” In doing so, Telebuyer implicitly
18
recognized the practical fact that, when it comes to confidentiality designations, what matters is
19
not whether particular materials can accurately be described as literal “source code” but
20
whether they deserve protection on par with source code.
21
Although this order rejects Lone Star’s narrow reading of Section 2.9, it nevertheless
22
concludes Toshiba has not shown that the “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — SOURCE CODE”
23
designation is warranted here. The plain language of Section 2.9 does not encompass all
24
“formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics.” Whether or not specific materials
25
actually “define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or
26
hardware designs, disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial
27
risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means,” is a question that must
28
be answered on the facts of each particular case. Here, the undersigned judge personally
5

1

reviewed a sample of the documents Toshiba seeks to designate as “HIGHLY

2

CONFIDENTIAL — SOURCE CODE” and finds that they do not require protection on par

3

with true source code, especially since they were previously produced and apparently remained

4

in Lone Star’s possession for seven months without raising any reason for concern that such

5

possession created “a substantial risk of serious harm” to Toshiba.

6

This order therefore DENIES Toshiba’s request for a ruling that it properly designated

7

twelve process flows and process recipes as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — SOURCE CODE”

8

under our Protective Order. At least on this record, the lesser designation of “HIGHLY

9

CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” is sufficient. This ruling is without
prejudice to the possibility that Toshiba may show, on an improved record, that more stringent

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

protections are required for specific documents at issue.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: December 20, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6