Tessera, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 180

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part 176 Qualcomm's Renewed Motion to File Under Seal (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

TESSERA, INC.,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 12-692 CW

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING
IN PART QUALCOMM’S
RENEWED MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 176)

v.
QUALCOMM, INC.; FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATI
TECHNOLOGIES, ULC,
Defendants.
________________________________/

Defendant Qualcomm, Inc. seeks leave to file under seal an

12

unredacted version of Exhibit A to its motion to strike Plaintiff

13

Tessera, Inc.’s preliminary infringement contentions.

14

contains Tessera’s Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and

15

Infringement Contention, including Appendices A, B and C and

16

excerpts of Appendices D and E.

17

excerpts of Appendices D and E contain material that it has

18

designated as confidential, and the Amended Disclosure and

19

Appendices A and B contain material that Tessera and Defendants

20

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC have

21

designated as confidential.

22

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), ATI’s parent company, have

23

submitted declarations in support of Qualcomm’s motion to seal.

24

Exhibit A

Qualcomm represents that the

Tessera, Qualcomm, Freescale, ATI and

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

25

in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

26

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

27

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

28

be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot

1

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

2

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by

3

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

4

file each document under seal.

5

a document has been designated as confidential by another party,

6

that party must file a declaration establishing that the document

7

is sealable.

If

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

Qualcomm represents that the excerpts of Appendices D and E

8
9

See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

contain cross-sectional views of its accused product families,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

which depict the specific design and content of its chip packages.

11

Scott Decl. ¶ 5.

12

and that disclosure of this information to its competitors could

13

devalue these assets and hurts its ability to compete.

14

¶ 6.

15

and E, the Court finds that Qualcomm has established good cause to

16

seal them.

17

It states this information is highly proprietary

Id. at

Having reviewed the contents of the excerpts of Appendices D

Tessera, ATI, AMD and Freescale seek to seal portions of

18

section eight of the Amended Disclosure.

Tessera states that this

19

section contains confidential information about its licensing

20

negotiations with prospective licensees and facts about the

21

breadth of its licensing program and the number of Tessera

22

licensees, and that disclosure of such information would hurt its

23

ability to continue to license its technology successfully.

24

McDonald Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5.

25

section eight contains confidential information regarding their

26

discussions with Tessera about the patents-in-suit.

27

¶¶ 3, 5; Patrick Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5.

28

excerpt, the Court finds good cause to seal lines 7:6-20,

ATI, AMD and Freescale represent that

Chow Decl.

Having reviewed the relevant

2

1

7:27-8:7, 8:11-9:1 and 9:2-15.

2

good cause to seal lines 7:21-26 and 9:16-24, because these

3

portions merely describe the holdings of this Court, the

4

International Trade Commission and the Federal Circuit, which are

5

public information.

6

The parties have not established

Freescale, ATI and AMD also seek to seal portions of

7

Appendices A and B, which list the product families and specific

8

product model numbers that Tessera is accusing in this litigation.

9

Freescale, ATI and AMD state that public disclosure of this

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

information “could prejudice [them] relative to [their]

11

competitors and others with whom [they] engage[] in business

12

dealings.”

13

AMD do not explain how the identities of the accused products are

14

confidential or how public disclosure thereof would in fact

15

prejudice them.

16

established good cause to seal portions of these appendices.

17

Finally, Tessera seeks to seal Exhibit 3 to the Amended

Chow Decl. ¶ 6; Patrick Decl. ¶ 5.

Freescale, ATI and

Accordingly, the Court finds that they have not

18

Disclosure, which contains the declaration of Kirk E. Flatow.

19

McDonald Decl. ¶ 3.

20

document as part of its exhibits in support of its motion to

21

strike.

22

However, Qualcomm has not submitted this

Thus, Tessera’s request is denied.

Accordingly, Qualcomm’s motion to seal is GRANTED in part and

23

DENIED in part (Docket No. 176).

Within four days of the date of

24

this Order, Qualcomm shall file an unredacted version of Exhibit A

25

under seal and a redacted version in the public record.

26

version filed in the public record, Qualcomm shall redact lines

27

7:6-20, 7:27-8:7, 8:11-9:1 and 9:2-15 of the Amended Disclosure

28
3

In the

1

and the excerpts of Appendices D and E.

2

Appendices A, B or C.

3

Qualcomm shall not redact

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: July 11, 2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

7
8
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
28
4