MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

Filing 545

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 537 Motion to Intervene. The motion hearing set for June 10, 2014 is VACATED. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MEDIATEK INC.,

Case No.: 11-cv-5341 YGR

7

Plaintiff,

8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF THIRD PARTY
INTEL CORPORATION TO INTERVENE

vs.
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
Defendant.

12
13

Third Party Intel Corporation, with the stipulated agreement of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

14

and MediaTek, Inc., seeks to intervene in this action for the limited purpose of requesting the Court

15

to maintain the confidentiality of portions of a “License and Cooperation Agreement” (“license”)

16

between Intel and Motorola, Inc. that MediaTek filed under seal in accordance with Civil Local Rule

17

79-5(e). MediaTek filed the document under seal because Freescale had designated it “Highly

18

Confidential” under the governing stipulated protective order. Freescale filed a declaration in

19

support of sealing certain portions of the license. Intel moves to intervene to supports Freescale’s

20

request and to assert its own evidence and request for sealing additional portions of the license.

21

Intel seeks to intervene only for purposes of addressing the confidentiality of the license.

22

Counsel for MediaTek and Freescale have stipulated to Intel’s request to intervene, and to the relief

23

sought. Intel’s intervention will not, therefore, “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the

24

original parties’ rights. FRCP 24(b)(3); see Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-

25

LHK, 2013 WL 3958232, at *2 & n.2 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2013) (granting, under permissive

26

intervention standard, non-party’s motion to intervene for purposes of sealing its patent license

27

agreement where non-party “does not seek to intervene for the purpose of litigating any claims on the

28

merits, simply to ensure that a license agreement between [non-party] and [plaintiff] is maintained
under seal. Neither [plaintiff] nor [defendant] oppose [non-party’s] motion. Therefore, there is no

1

basis for the Court to infer that intervention would ‘unduly delay or prejudice’ the adjudication of

2

[the parties’] rights.”). Consequently, the motion is GRANTED for the limited purpose of considering

3

the motion to seal filed by Intel at Docket No. 538.

4

This Order terminates Docket No. 537.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: June 5, 2014
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

2