U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al

Filing 1293

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL(1162, 1165, 1168, 1183, 1192, 1195, 1196, 1217, 1221, 1225, 1238, 1255, 1258, 1261, 1279 in case 4:10-cv-03724-CW; and 525, 526, 532, 536, 537, 545, 553, 556, 559, 568 in case 4:10-cv-05254-CW) Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

5
6
7

Plaintiff,
v.
ACER, INC., et al.,

8
9

Defendants.
and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.,

11

No. C 10-3724 CW
ORDER ON
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Docket Nos.
1162, 1165, 1168,
1183, 1192, 1195,
1196, 1217, 1221,
1225, 1238, 1255,
1258, 1261 and
1279)

Intervenors.
________________________________/

12
13
14

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

17

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, et al.,

18

Defendants.
________________________________/

No. C 10-5254 CW
ORDER ON
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Docket Nos. 525,
526, 532, 536,
537, 545, 553,
556, 559 and 568)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal
filed by multiple parties.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under
seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be
sealed “are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise
entitled to protection under the law.”

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

Any

sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable
material.

Id.

The request must be supported by the designating

1

party’s declaration establishing that the information is sealable.

2

Id. subsection (d).

3

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to

4

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

5

records and documents.’”

6

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

7

request, the Court begins with “a strong presumption of access

8

[as] the starting point.”

9

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,
In considering a sealing

Id.

A party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

motion bears the burden of establishing “compelling reasons

11

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general

12

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.”

13

Id. at 1178-79.

14

“the heart of the interest in ensuring the public’s understanding

15

of the judicial process and of significant public events.”

16

at 1179.

17

This is because dispositive motions represent

Id.

The strong presumption in favor of access does not apply with

18

equal force to non-dispositive motions, which may be only

19

“tangentially related” to the underlying cause of action.

20

at 1179-80.

21

dispositive motions must show good cause by making a

22

“particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will

23

result” should the information be disclosed.

24

26(c).

25

not suffice.

26

1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003).

27

as relevant to the documents addressed below.

Id.

A party seeking to seal materials related to non-

Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P.

“[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential harm” will
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
These different standards are applied

28
2

The Court provides the following rulings on the parties’

1
2

motions to seal, as articulated in the table below.

3

Case No. 10-3724

4

Docket

5

No.

6

1162

Ruling

Intervenor Atheros seeks permission to file under

7

seal Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of John W.

8

McCauley, IV in support of Intervenors’ and

9

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motions.

11

These documents contain references to and excerpts

12

from Atheros product specifications including source

13

code.

14
15

If Atheros seeks permission to seal these documents

16

in their entirety, the motion is DENIED for failure

17

to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which

18

requires that requests to seal be narrowly tailored.

19
20

However, if Atheros intended to file these documents

21

with only confidential information redacted (as

22

suggested by its statement that “[t]he exhibits

23

contain information that has been marked as

24

[confidential]”), Atheros fails to file redacted

25

versions of these documents as required by Civil

26

Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C).

27
28
3

1

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No. 1162).

2

Atheros may resubmit a modified and narrowly

3

tailored version of this sealing request no later

4

than seven days from the date of this order.

5

does not do so, the documents must be filed in the

6

public record.

If it

7
8

1165

Defendant Hewlett Packard (HP) moves to file under
seal all or parts of the following two documents:

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Exhibit 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Cameron A.

11

Zinsli (Zinsli Declaration).

12

any justification for why these documents should be

13

sealed.

14

No. 1165).

15

order, HP shall file a declaration justifying its

16

request, or, in the alternative, file unredacted

17

versions of these documents in the public record.

HP has not provided

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket
Within seven days of the date of this

18
19

1168

Intervenor Marvell Semiconductor (MSI) moves to file

20

under seal all or part of the following documents

21

filed in support of Intervenors’ and Defendants’

22

Motions for Summary Judgment and Opposition to

23

Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motions:

24

1. Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Motions for

25

Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s

26

Dispositive Motion.

27

because MSI has limited its request to

28
4

The motion is GRANTED

1
2

confidential information.
2. Exhibits 1—5 to the Declaration of Michael

3

Flynn-O’Brien in Support of Intervenors’ and

4

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and

5

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion

6

(Flynn Declaration).

7

detailed MSI sales and financial information.

8

The motion is GRANTED because MSI has limited

9

its request to confidential information.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

These exhibits contain

3. Exhibits 6-8 to the Flynn Declaration.

These

11

documents comprise excerpts from the expert

12

report and deposition of Dr. Mitzenmacher, and

13

quote MSI’s highly confidential technical

14

documentation.

15

MSI has limited its request to confidential

16

information.

17

The motion is GRANTED because

4. Exhibit 9 to the Flynn Declaration.

Exhibit 9

18

comprises excerpts from the deposition

19

transcript of MSI’s Rule 30(b)(6) technical

20

witness, Manfred Kunz.

21

because MSI has limited its request to

22

confidential information.

23

The motion is GRANTED

5. Exhibit 10 to the Flynn Declaration.

Exhibit

24

10 comprises excerpts from the deposition

25

transcript of Dr. Thomas M. Conte, USEI’s

26

expert regarding validity.

27

GRANTED because MSI has limited its request to

28
5

The motion is

confidential information.

1

6. The Declaration of Manfred Kunz (Kunz

2
3

Declaration), in its entirety.

Portions of the

4

Kunz Declaration contain MSI’s confidential

5

technical documentation and source code for the

6

accused products.

7

because MSI has limited its request to

8

confidential information.

The motion is GRANTED

7. Exhibit 1 to the Kunz Declaration.

9

Exhibit 1

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

is an excerpt from MSI’s internal and

11

confidential correspondence regarding analysis

12

of certain MSI and third party products.

13

motion is GRANTED because MSI has limited its

14

request to confidential information.

The

15

Accordingly, MSI’s motion to seal is GRANTED (Docket

16

No. 1168).

17

1183

Defendant Apple moves to file under seal all or part

18

the following documents in Support of its Motion for

19

Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of the

20

094 Patent:

21

1. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Chris Cravey

22

(Cravey Declaration).

23

technical material from Sun Microsystem’s (now

24

Oracle America, Inc.) proprietary literature

25

describing the structure, configuration, and

26

operation of the Sun Ethernet technology.

27

motion is GRANTED because Apple has limited its

28
6

The document contains

The

1

request to confidential information.

2

2. Exhibit 2 to the Cravey Declaration.

Exhibit 2

3

is a detailed summary of Apple’s Ethernet

4

components and software.

5

because Apple has limited its request to

6

confidential information.

7

The motion is GRANTED

3. Exhibit 3 to the Cravey Declaration.

Exhibit 3

8

contains highly sensitive information regarding

9

how certain aspects of the Sun Ethernet

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

technology was utilized and implemented in

11

certain Apple products.

12

because Apple has limited its request to

13

confidential information.

14

The motion is GRANTED

4. Exhibit 4 to the Cravey Declaration.

Exhibit 4

15

comprises excerpts from the Sun GEM Gigabit

16

Ethernet ASIC Specification.

17

GRANTED because Apple has limited its request

18

to confidential information.

19

The motion is

5. Exhibit 5 to the Cravey Declaration.

Exhibit 5

20

comprises portions of Apple’s Ethernet driver

21

source code for the accused Sun Ethernet

22

technology utilized in certain Apple products.

23

The motion is GRANTED because Apple has limited

24

its request to confidential information.

25

6. Exhibit 6 to the Cravey Declaration.

Exhibit 6

26

comprises certain excerpts from the May 31,

27

2014 deposition of USEI technical expert

28
7

1

Michael Mitzenmacher.

The motion is GRANTED

2

because Apple has limited its request to

3

confidential information.

4

7. Apple’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, as

5

found in Docket No. 1167-2 (redacted) and 1167-

6

3 (unredacted).

7

Apple has limited its request to confidential

8

information.
Accordingly, Apple’s motion to seal is GRANTED

9

(Docket No. 1183).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The motion is GRANTED because

1192

Defendant Intel seeks permission to file Exhibit 1

12

to the Declaration of Melissa Hotze (Hotze

13

Declaration) in Support of its Motion for Relief

14

from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate

15

Judge.

16

videotaped disposition of Laurence Rosenberg.

17

has not provided any reason why this document should

18

be filed under seal, and there does not appear to be

19

any sealable material in the document.

20

Intel’s motion to seal is DENIED (Docket No. 1192).

21

Within seven days of the date of this order, Intel

22

may file a declaration justifying its request, or,

23

in the alternative, file an unredacted version of

24

this document in the public record.

Exhibit 1 contains excerpts from the
Intel

Accordingly,

25
26
27

1195

USEI seeks permission to file under seal, in its
entirety, its

Reply in Support of its Motions for

28
8

1

(536 in

Summary Judgment and Response in Opposition to

2

10-5254)

Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Motions for Summary

3

Judgment.

USEI does not limit its request to only

4

confidential material, and the document contains

5

unsealable information.

6

DENIED (Docket No. 1195) for failure to comply with

7

Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires that

8

requests to seal be narrowly tailored.

9

resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored version of

Accordingly, the motion is

USEI may

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

this sealing request no later than seven days from

11

the date of this order.

12

been designated confidential both by USEI and

13

Defendants, USEI must also provide proof of service

14

to Defendants.

15

Defendants must file a declaration establishing that

16

the document is sealable.

17

so, the document must be filed in the public record.

Because this document has

Within four days of being served,

If the parties fail to do

18
19

1196

USEI seeks permission to file under seal all or part
of numerous documents in support of its Motions for

20
21

(537 in

22

10-5254)

Summary Judgment:
1. Exhibits 2, 9, 13—16, 22—25, 27, 29, 31, 32,

23

35—37, 39—47, 50—52, 54, 55, 58, 61—65, 67, 69

24

and 70 to the Declaration of D. Sean Nation

25

(Nation Declaration). These documents comprise

26

excerpts of confidential technical information,

27

including, in some cases, source code.

28
9

The

1

motion is GRANTED with regard to these

2

documents because USEI has limited its request

3

to confidential technical information.

4

2. Exhibits 4, 27, 34, 48, 53, 57, 66 and 68 to

5

the Nation Declaration.

The motion is DENIED

6

with regard to these documents for failure to

7

comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which

8

requires that requests to seal be narrowly

9

tailored.

USEI may resubmit a modified and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

narrowly tailored version of this sealing

11

request no later than seven days from the date

12

of this order.

13

documents must be filed in the public record.

14

If it does not do so, these

3. Exhibits 3, 11, 38 and 56 to the Nation

15

Declaration.

16

confidential design and technical information

17

about Intel’s products.

18

party, Intel has provided redacted and

19

unredacted versions of these documents in

20

Docket No. 1207.

21

regard to these documents because Intel limits

22

the redacted material to confidential technical

23

information.

24

documents can be filed under seal.

25

These documents contain

As the designating

The motion is GRANTED with

The redacted versions of these

4. Exhibit 59 to the Nation Declaration. The

26

motion is DENIED with regard to this document

27

because the document discusses issues that are

28
10

1

in the public record.

USEI may file a

2

declaration justifying its sealing request no

3

later than seven days from the date of this

4

order.

5

must be filed in the public record.

If it does not do so, these documents

6

Accordingly, USEI’s motion to seal is GRANTED in

7

part and DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket

8

No. 1196).

9

1217

Defendant Apple seeks permission to file under seal

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

all or part of the following documents in Support of

11

the Reply in Support of Intervenors’ and Defendants’

12

Motions for Summary Judgment and Opposition to

13

Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion:

14

1. Exhibit 7 to the Cravey Declaration.

Exhibit 7

15

contains excerpts from the May 31, 2014

16

deposition of USEI’s technical expert Michael

17

Mitzenmacher.

18

Apple has limited its request to confidential

19

information.

The motion is GRANTED because

20

2. Portions of Apple’s Reply in Support of its

21

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-

22

Infringement of the ‘094 Patent.

23

contains information about Apple’s acquisition

24

of the Sun Ethernet technology and the

25

technical configuration and settings of the Sun

26

Ethernet technology.

27

because Apple has limited its request to

28
11

The document

The motion is GRANTED

confidential information.

1
2

Accordingly, Apple’s motion to seal is GRANTED

3

(Docket No. 1217).

4

1221

Defendant Intel seeks permission to file under seal
all or part of the following documents in support of

5
6

(545 in

Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Reply In Support of

7

10-5254)

Motions for Summary Judgment:

8
9

1. The Reply itself.

Portions of the document

contain confidential Intel financial

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

information and sales information pertaining to

11

the sales of PHY chips and ICH2 products.

12

motion is GRANTED with regard to this document

13

because Intel has limited its request to

14

confidential information.

15

The

2. Exhibit 67 to the Constant Reply Declaration.

16

Exhibit 67 contains discussion of a settlement

17

agreement.

18

the name of the party who designated the

19

document confidential, nor has it articulated a

20

compelling reason why it should be sealed.

21

Accordingly, with regard to Exhibit 67, this

22

motion is DENIED.

23

file a declaration justifying its request and

24

identifying the party that designated the

25

document confidential, along with proof of

26

service on that party.

27

so, the document must be withdrawn.

Intel does not, however, provide

28
12

With seven days, Intel must

If Intel fails to do
The

1

designating party must file, within four days

2

of being served, a declaration justifying why

3

the document is sealable.

4

so, the document must be filed in the public

5

record.

If it does not do

3. Exhibit 68 to the Constant Reply Declaration.

6
7

Exhibit 68 is the supplemental expert report of

8

Walter Bratic.

9

confidential agreement between Intel, Xircom

This document refers to a

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and 3Com.

The motion is GRANTED with regard to

11

this document because Intel has limited its

12

redactions to only confidential information.
4. Exhibits 69 and 70 to the Constant Reply

13
14

Declaration.

These are exhibits to USEI’s

15

Damages Expert’s First and Supplemental Report

16

regarding Intel.

17

documents in their entirety due to the

18

confidential financial information contained

19

therein.

20

this document because Intel has limited its

21

request to confidential information.

Intel seeks to seal these

The motion is GRANTED with regard to

22

Accordingly, Intel’s motion to seal is GRANTED in

23

part and DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket

24

No. 1221).

25
26
27

1225

Intervenor MSI seeks permission to file under seal
all or part of the following documents filed in

28
13

1

connection with the Reply in Support of Intervenors’

2

and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and

3

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motions:

4

1. The Reply itself.

MSI represents that the

5

document discusses detailed financial and

6

technical information about MSI.

7

has failed to file both the redacted and

8

unredacted versions of the document as required

9

by Local Civil Rule 79-5(d)(1).

However, MSI

Accordingly,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

with regard to this document, the motion is

11

DENIED.

12

declaration accompanied by the unredacted and

13

redacted versions of this document, or, in the

14

alternative, file an unredacted version of this

15

document in the public record.

16

Within seven days, MSI must file a

2. Exhibits 11-12 to the Flynn Declaration.

These

17

documents contain excerpts from the Rebuttal

18

Expert Report of Dr. Leonard J. Forys Re: Non-

19

Infringement.

20

regard to these documents because MSI has

21

limited its request to confidential

22

information.

23

The motion is GRANTED with

3. Exhibit 13 to the Flynn Declaration.

Exhibit

24

13 is a sealed “Order on Marvell’s Motion for

25

Summary Judgment” from France Telecom S.A. v.

26

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-

27

04967-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

28
14

The order contains

1

confidential business contacts, locations, and

2

financial information, and was sealed in that

3

case.

4

this document because MSI limits its request to

5

only confidential information and the

6

information was previously sealed.

7

4. Exhibit 14 to the Flynn Declaration.

The motion is GRANTED with regard to

Exhibit

8

14 is the sealed “Plaintiff’s Opposition to

9

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” filed

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

in France Telecom S.A.

Exhibit 14 contains

11

confidential sales, business, and financial

12

information.

13

to this document because MSI limits its request

14

to only confidential information and the

15

information was previously sealed.

16

5. Exhibit 16 to the Flynn Declaration.

The motion is GRANTED with regard

Exhibit

17

16 is Exhibit 2 of Deposition of Kenny Tam,

18

which contains two copies of a license

19

agreement between MSI, MAPL, and 3Com.

20

motion is GRANTED with regard to this document

21

because MSI has limited its request to

22

confidential information.

23

6. Exhibit 17 to the Flynn Declaration.

The

Exhibit

24

17 contains excerpts from the Rebuttal Expert

25

Witness Report and Disclosure of Julie L.

26

Davis.

27

this document because MSI has limited its

The motion is GRANTED with regard to

28
15

1

request to confidential information.

2

7. Exhibit 19 to the Flynn Declaration.

Exhibit

3

19 is the deposition transcript of MSI’s Rule

4

30(b)(6) technical witness, Manfred Kunz.

5

motion is GRANTED with regard to this document

6

because MSI limits its request to only

7

confidential information.

The

8

Accordingly, MSI’s motion to seal is GRANTED in part

9

and DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket No.
1225).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

1238

USEI seeks permission to file under seal all or part
of the following documents:

13
14

(553 in

15

10-5254)

1. Exhibits 1-6 and 11-14 contain the reports of
USEI’s primary infringement expert, Dr.

16

Mitzenmacher, which USEI seeks to file under

17

seal in their entirety.

18

base and supplemental infringement reports

19

prepared by Dr. Mitzenmacher for Defendants and

20

Intervenors.

21

documents is DENIED for failure to comply with

22

Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires that

23

requests to seal be narrowly tailored.

24

may resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored

25

version of this sealing request no later than

26

seven days from the date of this order.

27

does not do so, the documents must be filed in

These exhibits are the

The motion with regard to these

28
16

USEI

If it

the public record.

1

2. Exhibit 9 is pages 49-52 of the report of

2
3

USEI’s expert Dr. Thomas Conte.

USEI

4

represents that Exhibit 9 has been designated

5

by Defendants as highly confidential.

6

Defendants have not filed declarations in

7

support of USEI’s motion to seal as required by

8

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

9

regards to Exhibit 9, the motion is DENIED.

Accordingly, with

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendants must file, within four days of the

11

date of this order, a declaration justifying

12

why this document is sealable.

13

fail to do so, USEI must file this document in

14

the public record.

If Defendants

3. Exhibit 15 is a report of Dr. Walter Bratic,

15
16

USEI’s damages expert.

17

with regard to this document for failure to

18

comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which

19

requires that requests to seal be narrowly

20

tailored.

21

narrowly tailored version of this sealing

22

request no later than seven days from the date

23

of this order.

24

document must be filed in the public record.

27

USEI may resubmit a modified and

If it does not do so, the

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket 1238).

25
26

The motion is DENIED

1255

Intervenor Atheros moves to seal, in their entirety,
Exhibits 1 and 5 to the Declaration of John W.

28
17

1

McCauley (McCauley Declaration) in support of its

2

opposition to USEI’s motion to supplement the record

3

and for leave to serve supplemental reports.

4

documents contain references to and excerpts from

5

Atheros product specifications, which include source

6

code.

7

failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b),

8

which requires that requests to seal be narrowly

9

tailored.

The

The motion (Docket No. 1255) is DENIED for

Atheros may resubmit a modified and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

narrowly tailored version of this sealing request no

11

later than seven days from the date of this order.

12

If it does not do so, the documents must be filed in

13

the public record.

14
15

1258

Intervenor Intel seeks permission to file under seal
all or part of the following documents in connection

16
17

(556 in

with Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Opposition to

18

10-5254)

USEI’s Motion to Supplement the Record and for Leave

19

to Serve Supplemental Reports:

20

1. The Opposition itself.

The motion is GRANTED

21

with regard to this document because the

22

materials are related to a non-dispositive

23

motion and because Intel limits the redacted

24

material to only confidential information.

25

2. Exhibits 2, 4, 9, 11, 19 and 20 to the

26

Declaration of Justin L. Constant (Constant

27

Declaration).

Intel does not provide any

28
18

1

justification for why these documents should be

2

sealed.

3

documents, the motion is DENIED.

4

days of the date of this order, Intel may file

5

a declaration justifying its request, or, in

6

the alternative, file unredacted versions of

7

these documents in the public record.

8

these documents have been designated

9

confidential by USEI, Intel must also provide

Accordingly, with regard to these
Within seven

Because

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

proof of service to USEI.

11

receiving notice, USEI must file a declaration

12

establishing that these documents are sealable.

13

If the parties fail to do so, these documents

14

must be filed in the public record.

15

Within four days of

3. Exhibits 3, 5, 13, 16, 17 to the Constant

16

Declaration.

17

Bratic’s Expert Report exhibits J2 and J5.

18

motion is GRANTED with regard to these

19

materials because the materials are related to

20

a non-dispositive motion and because Intel

21

limits its request to only confidential

22

information.

23

These are varying versions of Mr.

4. Exhibit 6 to the Constant Declaration.

The

This is

24

a chart showing calculations based on unit

25

sales in Mr. Bratic’s Expert Report.

26

motion is GRANTED with regard to this document

27

because the materials are related to a non-

28
19

The

1

dispositive motion and because Intel limits its

2

request to only confidential information.
5. Exhibit 8 to the Constant Declaration.

3

Exhibit

4

8 comprises a portion of the Base Expert

5

Witness Report of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher

6

(Mitzenmacher Report).

7

because the materials are related to a non-

8

dispositive motion and because Intel limits its

9

request to only confidential information.

The motion is GRANTED

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

6. Exhibits 14 and 15 to the Constant Declaration,

11

which Intel seeks to file under seal in their

12

entirety.

13

Second Supplemental Base Reports.

14

is DENIED with regard to these documents for

15

failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-

16

5(b), which requires that requests to seal be

17

narrowly tailored.

18

modified and narrowly tailored version of this

19

sealing request no later than seven days from

20

the date of this order.

21

and USEI does not either, these documents must

22

be filed in the public record.

These are Mr. Bratic’s First and
The motion

Intel may resubmit a

If it does not do so,

23

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as

24

set forth above (Docket No. 1258).

25

1261

Intervenor Marvell (MSI) seeks permission to file

26

under seal all or part of the following documents in

27

connection with Intervenors’ And Defendants’

28
20

1

Opposition To USEI’s Motion To Supplement The Record

2

And For Leave To Serve Supplemental Reports:
1. The Opposition itself.

3

MSI represents that the

4

document discusses detailed financial and

5

technical information about itself.

6

MSI has failed to file both the redacted and

7

unredacted versions of the document in

8

connection with this motion as required by

9

Local Civil Rule 79-5(d)(1).

However,

Accordingly, with

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

regard to this document, the motion is DENIED.

11

Within seven days, MSI must file a declaration

12

accompanied by the unredacted and redacted

13

versions of this document, or, in the

14

alternative, file an unredacted version of this

15

document in the public record.
2. Exhibits 2—8 to the Declaration of Michael

16
17

Flynn-O’Brien (Flynn Declaration).

These

18

exhibits comprise highly confidential

19

technical, financial, and business information.

20

The motion is GRANTED with regard to these

21

materials because they are related to a non-

22

dispositive motion and because MSI limits its

23

request to only confidential information.

24

MSI’s motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED

25

in part, as set forth above (Docket No. 1261).

26
27

1279

USEI moves to seal the entire Supplemental Report of
Walter Bratic and its Exhibits.

28
21

Mr. Bratic’s report

1

(568 in

and exhibits include information on the number of

2

10-5254)

accused products sold during the damages period and

3

a chart, for each product, stating which patent each

4

product is accused of infringing.

5

document is sealable.

6

seal is GRANTED (Docket No. 1279).

Most of this

Accordingly, USEI’s motion to

7
8

Case No. 10-5254

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

525

Intervenor Sigma Designs, Inc. (Sigma) seeks
permission to file under seal all or part of the
following documents in support of Intervenors’ and
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motions:
1. Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Lin.
2. Amended Expert Witness Report of Dr. Michael
Mitzenmacher Regarding Infringement of U.S.
Patent No. 5,299,313 by Intervenor Sigma
Designs, Inc. and Defendant AT&T Services.
The motion (Docket No. 525) is DENIED for failure to
comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires
that requests to seal be narrowly tailored.

Sigma

may resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored
version of this sealing request no later than seven
days from the date of this order.

If it does not do

so, the documents must be filed in the public
record.

28
22

1

526

Defendant AT&T Services (ATTS) seeks permission to

2

file under seal all or part of the following

3

documents in support of Intervenors’ and Defendants’

4

Motions for Summary Judgment and Opposition to

5

Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motions:

6

1. Excerpt from the April 28, 2014 Amended Expert

7

Witness Report of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher

8

regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent No.

9

5,299,313 by Intervenor Sigma Designs, Inc. and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendant ATTS.

11

regard to this document because ATTS limits its

12

request to only confidential information.

13

The motion is GRANTED with

2. Excerpt from Appendix M of the April 25, 2014

14

Expert Report of Walter Bratic.

15

contains confidential, nonpublic, and sensitive

16

financial information of ATTS.

17

GRANTED with regard to this document because

18

ATTS limits its request to only confidential

19

information.

20

The excerpt

The motion is

3. Excerpt from Appendix I of the April 25, 2014

21

Expert Report of Walter Bratic.

22

contains confidential, nonpublic, and sensitive

23

financial information of Sigma.

24

GRANTED with regard to this document because

25

ATTS limits its request to only confidential

26

information.

27

The excerpt

The motion is

4. Excerpt from the transcript of Walter Bratic’s

28
23

June 10-11, 2014 Deposition.

2

contains confidential, nonpublic, and sensitive

3

information of USEI, Sigma and/or ATTS.

4

also contains considerable non-sealable

5

information.

6

to this document for failure to comply with

7

Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires that

8

requests to seal be narrowly tailored.

9

may resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

version of this sealing request no later than

11

seven days from the date of this order.

12

Because this document has been designated

13

confidential by USEI, Sigma and ATTS, Sigma

14

must also provide proof of service to USEI and

15

ATTS.

16

and ATTS must file a declaration establishing

17

that the document is sealable.

18

fail to do so, the document must be filed in

19

the public record.

20

The excerpt

It

The motion is DENIED with regard

ATTS

Within four days of being served, USEI

If the parties

5. Excerpt from the transcript of Michael

21

Mitzenmacher’s May 31, 2014 Deposition.

22

excerpt contains confidential, nonpublic, and

23

sensitive information of USEI, Sigma and ATTS.

24

The motion is GRANTED with regard to this

25

excerpt because ATTS limits its request to only

26

confidential information.

27

The

ATTS’s motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED

28
24

in part, as set forth above (Docket No. 526).

1
2

532

Intel seeks permission to file under seal all or

3

part of the following documents in connection with

4

Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Motions for Summary

5

Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Dispositive

6

Motions:

7

1. The Motion and Opposition itself.

The motion

8

is GRANTED with regard to this document because

9

Intel limits the redacted material to only

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

confidential information.
2. Exhibits 1, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 34-40 and

12

63-65 to the Constant Declaration.

13

represents that USEI has designated these

14

documents as confidential, but there appears to

15

be no declaration from USEI as to why these

16

documents should be filed under seal.

17

Accordingly, with regard to these documents,

18

the motion is DENIED.

19

must file a declaration justifying its request,

20

and USEI must file a declaration justifying why

21

these documents are sealable.

22

fail to do so, unredacted versions of these

23

documents must be filed in the public record.

24

Intel

Within seven days, Intel

If the parties

3. Exhibits 1-7, 9, 12—14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29—32,

25

53 and 55-58 to the Constant Declaration.

26

These documents comprise excerpts of other

27

documents and contain confidential technical,

28
25

1

financial and/or business information.

With

2

regard to these documents, the motion is

3

GRANTED because Intel limits its request to

4

only confidential information.
4. Exhibit 29 of the Constant Declaration.

5

With

6

respect to this exhibit, the motion is DENIED

7

because the document does not appear to contain

8

any confidential information.

9

days, Intel may file a declaration justifying

Within seven

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

why this document is sealable, or, in the

11

alternative, it must file an unredacted version

12

of this document in the public record.

13

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part and

14

DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket No. 532).

15

559

Intervenor Sigma seeks permission to file under seal

16

all or part of the following documents relating to

17

Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Opposition To USEI’s

18

Motion to Supplement the Record and for Leave to

19

Serve Supplemental Reports:

20

1. Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 to the Declaration of

21

Keren Hu (Hu Declaration).

These exhibits

22

contain references to and excerpts from Sigma

23

product specifications, which include source

24

code.

25

these documents because the materials are

26

related to a non-dispositive motion and because

27

Sigma limits its request to only confidential

The motion is GRANTED with regard to

28
26

1
2

information.
2. Exhibit 3 to the Hu Declaration.

The motion is

3

DENIED with regard to this document because it

4

does not appear to contain any confidential

5

information.

6

a declaration justifying why this document is

7

sealable, or, in the alternative, it must file

8

an unredacted version of this document in the

9

public record.

Within seven days, Sigma may file

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part and

11

DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket No. 559).

12

CONCLUSION

13

For the reasons set forth above, Atheros’ Administrative

14

Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1162) is

15

DENIED; HP’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No.

16

10-3724, Docket No. 1165) is DENIED; MSI’s Administrative Motion

17

to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1168) is GRANTED;

18

Apple’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-

19

3724, Docket No. 1183) is DENIED; Intel’s Administrative Motion to

20

File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1192) is DENIED;

21

USEI’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724,

22

Docket No. 1195; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 536) is DENIED;

23

USEI’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724,

24

Docket No. 1196) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set

25

forth above; Apple’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

26

(Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1217) is GRANTED; Intel’s

27

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket

28
27

1

No. 1221; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 545) is GRANTED in part and

2

DENIED in part, as set forth above; MSI’s Administrative Motion to

3

File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1225) is GRANTED in

4

part and DENIED in part, as set forth above; USEI’s Administrative

5

Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1238; Case

6

No. 10-5254, Docket No. 553) is DENIED; Atheros’ Administrative

7

Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1255) is

8

DENIED; Intel’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No.

9

10-3724, Docket No. 1258) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

as set forth above; MSI’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

11

(Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1261) is GRANTED in part and DENIED

12

in part, as set forth above; USEI’s Administrative Motion to File

13

Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1279) is GRANTED; Sigma’s

14

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-5254, Docket

15

No. 525) is DENIED; ATTS’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

16

(Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 526) is GRANTED in part and DENIED

17

in part, as set forth above; Intel’s Administrative Motion to File

18

Under Seal (Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 532) is GRANTED in part

19

and DENIED in part, as set forth above; Sigma’s Administrative

20

Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 559) is

21

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above.

22

With regard to those documents where the motion to file under

23

seal was denied, the denials are without prejudice.

24

requesting sealing must submit, within seven days, a revised

25

declaration remedying the deficiencies noted above.

26

document has been designated confidential by a party other than

27

the party requesting sealing, the requesting party must also

28

provide proof of service on the designating party.
28

The party

If the

The

1

designating party must file, within four days of receiving notice,

2

a declaration justifying why the document is sealable.

3

document for which these requirements are not met must be filed in

4

the public record if the designating party has not justified

5

sealing.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 24, 2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Any

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29