Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al

Filing 1034

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 1020 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

TESSERA, INC.,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

No. C 05-4063 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.;
SPANSION, LLC; SPANSION, INC.;
SPANSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.;
ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR
ENGINEERING, INC.; ASE (U.S.),
INC.; CHIPMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
CHIPMOS U.S.A., INC.; SILICONWARE
PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.;
SILICONWARE USA, INC.;
STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.;
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.; STATS
CHIPPAC, INC.; STATS CHIPPAC
(BVI), INC.; and STATS CHIPPAC,
LTD.,

ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING
IN PART MOTION TO
SEAL (Docket No.
1020)

Defendants.
________________________________/
Defendants STMicroelectronics, Inc. and STMicroelectronics

17
N.V. (collectively, the ST Defendants) move to file under seal
18
Exhibits A through E to the declaration of Ryan Sandrock,
19
submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment related
20
to patent exhaustion, which Tessera has designated as
21
confidential.

ST Defendants also move to file under seal the

22
declaration of Michael J. Hundt, submitted in support of their
23
motion, which they have designated as confidential.

Finally, the

24
ST Defendants move to file under seal the portions of their motion
25
that refer to these exhibits.

The ST Defendants and Tessera have

26
submitted declarations in support of the motion to seal.
27
Docket Nos. 1020-1 and 1025.
28

See

1

Exhibit E to the Sandrock declaration contains a license

2

agreement entered into by Tessera, Inc. and third-party Motorola,

3

Inc.

4

Inc. and successor-in-interest to the rights of Motorola, Inc.

5

under the license agreement, has also submitted a declaration in

6

support of the motion to seal this exhibit.

7

Motorola Mobility LLC, previously a segment of Motorola,

See Docket No. 1029.

The parties seek to seal court records connected to a

8

dispositive motion.

9

the party who has designated them as confidential “must overcome a

To establish that the documents are sealable,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

strong presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons

11

supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general

12

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”

13

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)

14

(citation omitted).

15

stringent “good cause” standard is applied to sealed discovery

16

documents attached to non-dispositive motions).

17

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

18

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

19

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by

20

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

21

file each document under seal.

22

Cf. id. at 678 (explaining that a less

This cannot be

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

Motorola Mobility attests that public disclosure of the

23

license agreement would place it a competitive disadvantage in

24

entering into future license agreements by providing others in the

25

market with “information that they would otherwise not have about

26

Motorola Mobility’s licensing terms and practices that would

27

provide” them with “a strategic negotiation advantage.”

28

Decl. ¶ 8.

Miller

It further attests that it operates in a “highly
2

1

competitive market” and that public disclosure would give its

2

competitors information about its licensing practices and “insight

3

regarding costs associated with Motorola Mobility’s products” that

4

would grant the competitors a “strategic advantage in terms of

5

competing against Motorola Mobility in the market.”

6

Having reviewed Exhibit E to the Sandrock declaration, the Court

7

concludes that Motorola Mobility has established that it and

8

references thereto in the motion for summary judgment are

9

sealable.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Id. at ¶ 9.

Tessera states that Exhibits A and D to the Sandrock

11

declaration contain a license agreement between Tessera and non-

12

parties Amkor Electronics, Inc. and EEMS Italia, SpA.

13

Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5.

14

about Tessera’s licensing of its patented semiconductor packaging

15

technology” and that “[p]ublic disclosure of non-public details of

16

that program would jeopardize Tessera’s ability to continue to

17

license its technology successfully,” which is “critical to its

18

business.”

19

sealed a similar license between Tessera and another party.

20

e.g., Docket Nos. 26, 96, Powertech Technology, Inc. v. Tessera,

21

Inc., Case No. 11-6121.

22

B and C to the Sandrock declaration are copies of confidential

23

arbitration awards from proceedings between Tessera and Amkor,

24

which reflect the terms of the licensing agreement between them,

25

and that these should be protected from disclosure for the same

26

reasons as the license agreement itself.

27

Having reviewed the contents of Exhibit A through D, the Court

28

finds that Tessera has established that these documents and

Id.

MacDonald

It states that this document contains “information

In a related case, the Court has previously
See,

Tessera further represents that Exhibits

3

MacDonald Decl. ¶ 4.

1

references thereto in the motion for summary judgment are

2

sealable.

3

The ST Defendants represent that the Hundt declaration

4

contains “highly sensitive information regarding ST’s business

5

relationships with Amkor, Motorola, and EEMS.”

6

¶ 4.

7

particularity the need to file this declaration under seal or the

8

type of harm that the ST Defendants would suffer if the

9

declaration were filed in the public record.

Sandrock Decl.

This general statement does not demonstrate with

Accordingly, the ST

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendants have not established that the Hundt declaration is

11

sealable.

12

For the reasons set forth above, the ST Defendants’ motion is

13

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED in part (Docket No. 1020).

14

three days of the date of this Order, the ST Defendants shall

15

electronically file under seal Exhibits A through E to the

16

Sandrock declaration and their unredacted motion.

17

the ST Defendants shall file in the public record the Hundt

18

Declaration and a redacted version of their motion that conforms

19

with this Order.

20

Within

By that date,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated:

8/10/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
4