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

Filing 1061


Download PDF
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 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., No. C 05-4063 CW ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE COURT’S AUGUST 10, 2012 ORDER TO ALLOW PARTIES TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket No. 1041) Defendants. ________________________________/ On July 19, 2012, Defendants Advanced Semiconductor 17 Engineering, Inc. and ASE (U.S.) Inc. (collectively, ASE) and 18 STATS ChipPAC, Inc., STATS ChipPAC (BVI) Limited and STATS 19 ChipPAC, Ltd. (collectively, STATS ChipPAC) moved to file under 20 seal various exhibits attached to the declarations of Ramy E. 21 Hanna, Monica Eno, Flynn Carson and Justin Lewis submitted in 22 support of their motion for summary judgment related to Plaintiff 23 Tessera, Inc.’s breach of contract claims. Defendants also sought 24 to seal their unredacted motion for summary judgment. Defendants 25 represented that they and Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. had each 26 designated some of these exhibits as confidential. 27 28 ASE, STATS 1 ChipPAC and Tessera all filed declarations in support of the 2 motion to seal. 3 See Docket Nos. 1010-1, 1010-2 and 1023. On August 10, 2012, the Court denied the motion to seal, 4 finding that in each of their declarations, the parties had made 5 only conclusory statements that they considered the information 6 confidential without setting forth specific facts establishing 7 that the documents are sealable. 8 directed Defendants to file the declarations, their supporting 9 exhibits and the unredacted memorandum of law in the public docket United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Docket No. 1033. The Court within three days thereafter. On August 13, 2012, Defendants filed a redacted motion for 12 summary judgment and some, but not all, of the supporting 13 materials at issue in the Court’s August 10, 2012 Order in the 14 public record. 15 Tessera jointly filed the instant motion, seeking relief from the 16 prior order and leave to file under seal a much smaller subset of 17 the documents that Defendants sought to seal in their original 18 motion. 19 in support of the motion. 20 motion, the parties seek to seal the entirety of Exhibit A to the 21 Carson declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Hanna declaration, 22 portions of Exhibit D to the Carson declaration, Exhibit A to the 23 Lewis declaration and Exhibits M and R to the Eno declaration and 24 portions of their motion for summary judgment that refer to the 25 information contained in these exhibits. 26 Docket No. 1042. Docket No. 1041. At the same time, Defendants and STATS ChipPAC also filed a declaration Docket No. 1052. In the renewed The parties seek to seal court records connected to a 27 dispositive motion. 28 the party who has designated them as confidential “must overcome a To establish that the documents are sealable, 2 strong presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons 2 supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general 3 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’” 4 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) 5 (citation omitted). 6 stringent “good cause” standard is applied to sealed discovery 7 documents attached to non-dispositive motions). 8 established simply by showing that the document is subject to a 9 protective order or by stating in general terms that the material 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by 11 a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 12 file each document under seal. 13 Cf. id. at 678 (explaining that a less This cannot be Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). The parties represent that Exhibit A to the Carson 14 declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Hanna declaration contain 15 Tessera’s license agreements with ASE and ChipPAC. 16 Tessera has not filed a declaration in support of this renewed 17 motion to seal, other than its original conclusory declaration, 18 the parties point out that the Court has previously granted 19 requests to seal Tessera’s similar license agreements with other 20 parties in this and other cases, and aver that the harm that would 21 be caused disclosure of the instant license agreements would be 22 the same as the harm resulting from disclosure of the other 23 license agreements. 24 Docket Nos. 26, 96, Powertech Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 25 Case No. 11-6121. 26 case, Tessera submitted a declaration stating that similar license 27 agreements contain “information about Tessera’s licensing of its 28 patented semiconductor packaging technology” and that “[p]ublic Mot. at 4. Although See, e.g., Docket No. 1034; In support of an earlier motion to seal in this 3 1 disclosure of non-public details of that program would jeopardize 2 Tessera’s ability to continue to license its technology 3 successfully,” which is “critical to its business.” 4 Decl., Docket No. 1025 ¶¶ 3, 5. 5 the parties have established that Exhibit A to the Carson 6 declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Hanna declaration are sealable. 7 MacDonald Accordingly, the Court finds that STATS ChipPAC represents that portions of Exhibit D to the Carson declaration, Exhibit A to the Lewis declaration and 9 Exhibits M and R to the Eno declaration are sealable because they 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 “reference or detail the amount of royalty payments made by STATS 11 ChipPAC and/or royalty rates allegedly owed by STATS ChipPAC 12 pursuant to its TCC License Agreement with Tessera.” 13 Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. 14 “semiconductor chip assembly business is a highly competitive 15 field and financial information such as licensing royalty rates 16 and royalty payments are not shared with competitors.” 17 ¶ 8. 18 of various kinds in which the amount of royalties it will pay to 19 another, or that another company will pay to it, is an important 20 deal term.” 21 information it seeks to seal were publicly disclosed, because 22 future “potential licensees and licensors” could use the 23 information “to their competitive advantage” in future 24 negotiations. 25 that STATS ChipPAC seeks to seal, the Court finds that it has 26 established that they are sealable. 27 28 See also id. at ¶¶ 6-7. McNaughton It states that the Id. at “STATS ChipPAC frequently negotiates licensing arrangements Id. It believes that it will be disadvantaged if the Id. Having reviewed the portions of these exhibits STATS ChipPAC further seeks to seal another portion of Exhibit R to the Eno declaration, a record of a wire transfer made 4 1 by STATS ChipPAC which contains its “confidential banking and 2 customer information,” public disclosure of which could put its 3 financial accounts “at risk of access or mishandling.” 4 ¶ 7, 9. 5 to seal is its bank account number and customer identification 6 number and finds that it has established compelling reasons to 7 seal this information. 8 9 Id. at The Court notes that the information STATS ChipPAC seeks For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants the parties’ motion (Docket No. 1041). Within three days of the date United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 of this Order, Defendants shall electronically file under seal 11 unredacted versions of Exhibits A and D to the Carson declaration, 12 Exhibit 1 to the Hanna declaration, Exhibit A to the Lewis 13 declaration, Exhibits M and R to the Eno declaration and their 14 motion for summary judgment. 15 The Court warns the parties that, in the future, they are 16 required to comply with the terms of Local Rule 79-5. 17 to seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing of only 18 sealable material.” 19 designating the material as sealable must file a declaration in 20 support of the relevant motion to seal, establishing that the 21 specific material at issue is in fact sealable. 22 Rule 79-5(b),(c), (d). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Local Rule 79-5(a). All motions Further, the party See, e.g., Local 24 25 26 Dated: 8/20/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?