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

Filing 924

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ADDRESSING ( 777 , 852 , 874 , 884 , 887 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2013) Modified on 11/22/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

v.
ACER, INC.; ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION; APPLE, INC.; ASUS
COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL; ASUSTEK
COMPUTER, INC.; DELL, INC.;
FUJITSU, LTD.; FUJITSU AMERICA,
INC.; GATEWAY, INC.; HEWLETT
PACKARD CO.; SONY CORPORATION;
SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; SONY
ELECTRONICS INC.; TOSHIBA
CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA,
INC.; and TOSHIBA AMERICA
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

16
17

INTEL CORPORATION; NVIDIA
CORPORATION; MARVELL
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATHEROS
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and
BROADCOM CORPORATION,
Intervenors.

18
19
20
21

ORDER ADDRESSING
MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Docket Nos. 852,
874, 884, 777,
887)

Defendants,

14
15

No. C 10-3724 CW

________________________________/
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS,
COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY
CLAIMS
________________________________/
The Court addresses the pending motions to seal in the above

22
23

captioned cases as follows:

24

I.

25

Docket No. 852:
USEI moved to file under seal Exhibits A-F, J, and K attached

26

to the Declaration of David Gann in support of its motion for

27

leave to amend infringement contentions.

28

states that each of the documents contains information designated

Docket No. 852.

USEI

1

by Intel as “Highly Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only.”

2

August 16th, 2013, Intel submitted the Declaration of Seth Sproul

3

in support of USEI’s motion to seal.

4

withdrew the designation of confidentiality for the materials

5

included in Exhibits C-D, K to the Gann Declaration.

6

submits that the following exhibits contain proprietary Intel

7

source code that should not be available to the public: Exhibits A

8

at 4-5; B at 5; and F at 35, 37.

9

release could result in a competitive disadvantage for Intel and

Docket No. 868.

On

Intel

Intel

Intel represents that public

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

that Intel would be harmed if this material were made public.

11

Dynetix Design Solutions Inc. v. Synopsys Inc., 2013 WL 2285210

12

(N.D. Cal.).

13

confidential deposition testimony of Intel engineer Itamar Sharoni

14

that discusses the proprietary technology contained in these

15

exhibits.

16

exhibits to the public record.

17

proprietary source code and discuss confidential technology, Intel

18

has provided good cause for sealing this content.

19

these exhibits may be filed under seal.

Intel additionally represents that Exhibit J is

Intel has submitted a redacted version of these
Because these exhibits do contain

Accordingly,

Intel also states that Exhibits E at 1-20 and F at 1-34, 35,

20
21

37, 38 include portions of a confidential design document and a

22

description of a source code not available to the public.

23

has submitted a redacted version of these exhibits to the public

24

record.

25

result in a competitive disadvantage, they may be filed under

26

seal.

27
28

Intel

Because these exhibits do contain material that will

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS USEI’s motion to seal in regard
to Exhibits A at 4-5; B at 5; E at 1-20; F at 1-35, 35, 37-38; J;
2

1

and K.

2

file Exhibits C, D, and K in the public record.

3

II.

4

Within four days of the date of this order, USEI shall

Docket No. 874
Intel moved to file under seal Exhibit K to the Declaration

5

of Justin Constant.

6

contains a portion of a confidential draft design specification

7

for a product not released to the public.

8

public release could result in a competitive disadvantage for

9

Intel.

Intel alleges that Exhibit K

Intel alleges that

Upon review of this document, this Court GRANTS Intel’s

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Docket No. 874.

motion to seal.

11

III. Docket No. 884:

12

USEI moved to file under seal Corrected Exhibit F and

13

Exhibits O, P, Q, R, S and U to the Second Declaration of David

14

Gann in support of its reply in support of its motion for leave to

15

amend infringement contentions.

16

the materials in these exhibits had been designated by Intel as

17

“Highly Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only.”

18

2013, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), Intel filed the

19

Declaration of Frank Albert in support of Linex’s motion to seal.

20

Docket No. 893.

21

for Exhibit U.

22

incorporates source code from portions of Exhibit O; Exhibit O is

23

an excerpt of source code from Intel’s driver; Exhibit P provides

24

a detailed description of the confidential design of Intel’s

25

networker controllers; Exhibit Q refers to a draft specification

26

for a design that was never released by Intel; and Exhibits R and

27

S provide descriptions of confidential design elements for

28

proposed products.

Docket No. 884.

USEI stated that

On September 11,

Intel withdrew the designation of confidentiality
Intel testifies that the corrected Exhibit F

After reviewing these exhibits, the Court
3

1

finds that these documents contain proprietary information

2

regarding Intel’s technology.

3

sealable.

4

submit Exhibit U to the Second Gann Declaration in the public

5

record.

6

IV.

Accordingly, these exhibits are

Within four days of the date of this order, USEI will

Docket No. 777

7

On May 28, 2013, Intel moved to file under seal Exhibit 2 to

8

the Declaration of Seth M. Sproul in support of its opposition to

9

USEI’s motion regarding sanctions.

Docket No. 777.

In its motion

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and supporting declaration, Intel stated that Exhibit 2 consists

11

of excerpts from the deposition “testimony from third-party

12

subpoena recipient Richard Baker,” which includes “confidential

13

information of Mr. Baker, defendant Hewlett-Packard’s predecessor

14

in interest (3Com) and a third party customer of 3Com.”

15

2; see also Sproul Decl. ¶ 2.

16

Mot. at

On August 14, 2013, the Court found that Intel had not

17

identified the third-party customer of 3Com whose confidential

18

information is in Exhibit 2 and had not provided proof of service

19

of the motion or exhibit upon Mr. Baker or the third-party 3Com

20

customer.

21

to provide proof of service to Mr. Baker and the third-party 3Com

22

customer.

23

Mr. Baker and the third-party 3Com customer should file and serve

24

with the Court a declaration establishing that Exhibit 2 is

25

sealable.

26

of service on Mr. Baker and IBM.

27

submitted a declaration establishing that Exhibit 2 is sealable.

28

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Intel’s motion to seal.

Docket No. 857 at 9-10.

The Court gave Intel one day

The Court ordered that, within seven days thereafter,

On August 15, 2013, Intel provided the Court with proof
Docket No. 864.

4

No party has

Within four

1

days of the date of this order, Intel shall file Exhibit 2 to the

2

Sproul Declaration in the public record.

3

V.

4

Docket No. 887
Intel moved to seal Exhibit A to the Declaration of Justin

5

Constant.

6

includes a portion of the transcript of the deposition of USEI and

7

that it was designated “highly confidential” by USEI.

8

addition, Intel files a redacted version of its opposition to

9

USEI’s motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration because

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Docket No. 887.

Intel represents that Exhibit A

In

it contains discussion of Exhibit A.
USEI has not filed a declaration in support of Intel’s motion

12

to seal as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

Accordingly, the

13

Court DENIES Intel’s motion to seal.

14

of this order, Intel shall file these exhibits to the declaration

15

and the unredacted version of its motion in the public record.

Within four days of the date

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: 11/22/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5