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

Filing 199

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 194 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 TESSERA, INC., 5 6 7 8 9 Plaintiff, v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL (Docket No. 194) MOTOROLA, INC.; QUALCOMM, INC.; FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC, Defendants. 10 11 No. C 12-692 CW ________________________________/ Defendant Qualcomm, Inc. moves on behalf of itself, Freescale 12 Semiconductor, Inc., Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., ATI 13 Technologies ULC, Spansion, Inc., Spansion Technology, Inc., 14 Spansion, LLC, STMicroelectronics, Inc., and STMicroelectronics 15 N.V. to seal to Exhibit A to the Declaration of David H. Dolkas in 16 support of their motion for partial summary judgment and portions 17 of their memorandum of points and authorities that cite and quote 18 from Exhibit A. Exhibit A contains a license agreement entered 19 into by Tessera, Inc. and third-party Motorola, Inc. Tessera and 20 Motorola Mobility LLC, previously a segment of Motorola, Inc. and 21 successor-in-interest to the rights of Motorola, Inc. under the 22 license agreement, have submitted declarations in support of the 23 motion to seal. See Docket Nos. 196 and 197. 24 The parties seek to seal records connected to a dispositive 25 motion. To establish that the documents are sealable, the party 26 who has designated them as confidential “must overcome a strong 27 presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons 28 supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general 2 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’” 3 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) 4 (citation omitted). 5 stringent “good cause” standard is applied to sealed discovery 6 documents attached to non-dispositive motions). 7 established simply by showing that the document is subject to a 8 protective order or by stating in general terms that the material 9 is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 11 file each document under seal. 12 Cf. id. at 678 (explaining that a less This cannot be Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). Motorola Mobility attests that public disclosure of the 13 license agreement would place it a competitive disadvantage in 14 entering into future license agreements by providing others in the 15 market with “information that they would otherwise not have about 16 Motorola Mobility’s licensing terms and practices that would 17 provide” them with “a strategic negotiation advantage.” 18 Decl. ¶ 8. 19 competitive market” and that public disclosure would give its 20 competitors information about its licensing practices and “insight 21 regarding costs associated with Motorola Mobility’s products” that 22 would grant the competitors a “strategic advantage in terms of 23 competing against Motorola Mobility in the market.” 24 Miller It further attests that it operates in a “highly Id. at ¶ 9. Having reviewed Exhibit A and the memorandum of points and 25 authorities, the Court concludes that Motorola Mobility has 26 established that Exhibit A and the references thereto in the 27 memorandum are sealable. 28 under seal is GRANTED (Docket No. 194). Accordingly, Qualcomm’s motion to file 2 Within three days of the 1 date of this Order, Qualcomm shall electronically file under seal 2 Exhibit A and the unredacted memorandum of points and authorities 3 and shall file the redacted memorandum in the public record. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 Dated: 8/10/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 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 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?