Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Hewett-Packard Company et al

Filing 269

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenGRANTING DEFENDANT HEWLETT-PACKARDS 257 MOTION TO STAY AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL AND ADDRESSING 197 MOTION TO SEAL.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

No. C 13-00159 CW

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

LINEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD, et al.,
Defendants,

15

________________________________/

16

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT HEWLETTPACKARD’S MOTION
TO STAY AND FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A
DECLARATION IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO SEAL (Docket
No. 257) AND
ADDRESSING MOTION
TO SEAL (Docket
No. 197)

AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS,
COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY
CLAIMS
________________________________/

17
18
19
20
21

On August 2, 2013, Plaintiff Linex Technologies, Inc. filed
an administrative motion to file under seal Exhibits 11-15, 17-21,
23-26, 28-31, 33-41, 43-47, 49-52, 54-57, and 59-67 attached to

22
the Declaration of Robert McCauley in support of its motion for
23
leave to amend infringement contentions.

Docket No. 197.

Linex

24
25

stated that these exhibits contained information designated by

26

Defendants and third-party chip suppliers Marvell and Qualcomm-

27

Atheros as confidential business information pursuant to a

28

protective order.

1

On November 21, 2013, the Court entered an order which, among

2

other things, denied Plaintiff’s motion to seal because no party

3

filed a declaration in support of the motion as required by Civil

4

Local Rule 79-5(e).1

5

The Court directed Plaintiff to file the

exhibits to the declarations in the public record within four days

6
of the date of the order.

On November 25, 2013, Third Parties

7
8
9

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (Marvell) and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.
(Qualcomm) and Defendant Hewlett-Packard filed unopposed

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

administrative motions to stay the Court’s November 21, 2013 order

11

and for leave to file a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s

12

motion to seal.

13

Court granted Third Parties Marvells’ and Qualcomm’s motion to

14

Docket Nos. 255, 257.

On December 4, 2013, the

stay and for leave to file their declarations.

Docket No. 260.

15
The Court now GRANTS Defendant Hewlett-Packard’s motion to stay
16
17
18

and for leave to file its declarations.

Docket No. 257.

In addition, the Court now revisits the motion to seal,

19

taking into account the additional declarations filed in support

20

thereof and the order on the substantive motions to which the

21

motions to seal relate.

22

The Court finds that it did not rely on

the documents that are the subject of the motion to seal when it

23
granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its infringement
24
25
26
27
28

contents and denied Defendants’ cross-motion to strike.
1

The Court’s November 21, 2013 order also addressed two
other motions to seal. The Court’s orders with respect to those
motions are not at issue, and the Court’s November 21, 2013 order
remains in effect as to those motions (Docket Nos. 201 & 208).
2

1

Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED as moot.

2

No. 197.

3

Docket

Plaintiff need not file the documents discussed in that

motion in the public record.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated:

12/10/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

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