MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

Filing 292

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying in part and granting in part 285 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

MEDIATEK INC.,

10
11

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 11-cv-5341 YGR
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN
PART MOTION TO SEAL

vs.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
13

Defendant.

14
15
16
17

On October 18, 2013, MediaTek Inc. (MediaTek) filed a Stipulated Administrative Motion to
File Documents Under Seal (“Motion”) (Dkt. No. 285). The Motion seeks to seal portions of
MediaTek’s Letter Opposing Freescale’s Letter Seeking Leave to Move for Summary Judgment

18

(“the MediaTek Letter”).
19

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (Freescale) has filed a declaration from Mark Patrick, Law
20
21
22
23

Director, Intellectual Property, for Freescale, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-51 (the Patrick
Declaration) in support of the Motion. The Patrick Declaration states that the information in
Sections II.A. and II.B of the MediaTek Letter discusses highly confidential technical details of

24

Freescale’s accused products, disclosure of which would allow Freescale’s competitors to learn

25

information about the function and operation of those product families and possibly appropriate that

26

technology. As to the information sought to be sealed in Section III, Patrick declares that this reveals

27
1

28

The Court notes that the Patrick Declaration also indicates that it was filed under General
Order No. 62. However, General Order No. 62 was abrogated October 1, 2013, by the amendments
to Local Rule 79-5.

1

information on negotiations between Freescale and its customers, payment, marketing, and technical

2

support from which competitors could derive an understanding of Freescale’s confidential business

3

strategies. Freescale withdrew its confidentiality designations as to the information redacted in

4

Sections I.A and I.B of the MediaTek Letter.

5
6
7
8

The Court finds that this showing is sufficient to establish good cause for sealing this
information in connection with a non-dispositive motion. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics,
Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (applying Ninth Circuit law). Accordingly, for good cause
shown, the Court GRANTS MediaTek’s Motion to File Under Seal and ORDERS that the MediaTek

9

Letter, redacted portions in Sections II.A., II.B and III only, shall be SEALED.
10

MediaTek shall file a revised redacted version of the document, consistent with this Order,
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14

within 7 days. See Local Rule 79-5(f)(3).
This Order terminates Docket No. 285.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2013

15
16
17

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2