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

Filing 1075


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 TESSERA, INC., Plaintiff, 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC; SPANSION, LLC; SPANSION, INC., a Delaware corporation; 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., 15 POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY INC., ORDER REFERRING PENDING MOTIONS TO SEAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER Defendants. ________________________________/ 16 No. C 05-4063 CW 17 18 19 No. C 10-945 CW Plaintiff, v. TESSERA, INC., 20 Defendant. 21 ________________________________/ 22 POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY INC., 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, v. TESSERA, INC., Defendant. ________________________________/ No. C 11-6121 CW 1 TESSERA, INC., 2 3 4 5 6 No. C 12-692 CW Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM, INC.; FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATI TECHNOLOGIES, ULC, Defendants. 7 ________________________________/ 8 AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS / 9 The Court hereby refers all motions to seal connected to the 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California parties’ dispositive motions in the above-captioned cases to the 11 Special Master for adjudication. These motions “cannot be 12 effectively and timely addressed” by this Court, see Federal Rule 13 of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(C), and the Court has determined that 14 the Special Master already addressing discovery matters in these 15 cases will be able to review these issues more thoroughly. 16 In referring these motions, the Court wishes to draw the 17 Special Master’s attention to a number of issues that have been 18 presented with the motions to seal currently pending or previously 19 resolved in these cases. In many of these motions and the 20 supporting declarations, some or all of the parties have 21 repeatedly made conclusory statements that the documents are 22 confidential, of a sensitive nature or subject to a protective 23 order, without providing facts that could establish that the need 24 to prevent public disclosure of the documents outweighs “the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring 26 disclosure’” of information contained in court files. Pintos v. 27 Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation 28 2 1 omitted). 2 blanket protective order that allows a party to designate 3 documents as sealable[] will not suffice to allow the filing of 4 documents under seal”). 5 seek to seal the entirety of a document when the purportedly 6 confidential information appears in only a portion thereof. 7 some instances, the parties have asserted that documents are 8 sealable for multiple reasons without clearly indicating to which 9 portion of the document each reason corresponds. See also Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) (noting that “a Some requests have been unduly broad and In The Special United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Master may take appropriate measures to address failures to comply 11 with the standards for sealing documents set forth in the 12 applicable case law and Civil Local Rules, including, but not 13 limited to, denial of requests, reprimands, and imposition of 14 cost-shifting sanctions. 15 Further, the Court asks the Special Master to reconsider 16 whether there are compelling reasons to seal the license 17 agreements in these cases. 18 Special Master need not consider that this Court previously has 19 granted permission to the seal these agreements. 20 that it may revisit its prior orders following the Special 21 Master’s consideration of this issue. In making this determination, the The Court notes 22 Within three days of the date of this Order, each party who 23 has filed a pending motion to seal is directed to provide a copy 24 of that motion to seal and the documents that it seeks to seal to 25 the Special Master. 26 motion a copy of all declarations that have been filed in support 27 of the motion by that date and shall notify the parties that 28 submitted the declarations that it did so. That party shall compile and attach to the 3 Parties who file a 1 declaration in support of a pending motion to seal after that date 2 shall provide the Special Master with a copy of their declaration 3 clearly labeled with the docket number of the motion to seal that 4 it supports. 5 sealing of separate portions of a document, the parties shall 6 ensure that they clearly identify which reasons correspond to 7 which portions by notations or highlighting in the documents 8 submitted to the Special Master. 9 If there are different reasons supporting the IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 Dated: 8/31/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?