VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Filing 339

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS 331 , 332 , 335 , 336 RE: SEALING OF EXHIBIT 9 TO INTEL CORPORATION'S 334 AMENDED ANSWER. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/22/2021. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2021)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

INTEL CORPORATION,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF

Defendant.

12

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE EXHIBIT 9 TO INTEL’S
AMENDED ANSWER UNDER SEAL
AND TO CONSIDER WHETHER
ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL
SHOULD BE SEALED
[Re: ECF Nos. 331, 332, 335, 336]

13
14

Before the Court are Defendant Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) (1) Administrative Motions to

15
File Exhibit 9 to its Amended Answer Under Seal, ECF Nos. 331, 335, and (2) Administrative
16
17

Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, ECF Nos. 332, 336.
Finjan LLC (“Finjan”) submitted declarations in support of the Administrative Motions at ECF Nos.

18
332 and 336. See ECF Nos. 337, 338. All four motions pertain to a patent licensing agreement (the
19

“Agreement”) between Intel and Finjan that Intel attached as Exhibit 9 to its amended answer. See

20
ECF No. 334. Intel seeks to seal portions of the Agreement that were not previously made public
21
in a separate litigation. See, e.g., ECF No. 331 at 1. Finjan seeks to have the same portions sealed.
22

See ECF Nos. 337, 338. Having reviewed Intel and Finjan’s submissions and applicable sealing

23
law, the Court GRANTS the Administrative Motions.
24
25
26
27
28

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,
447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597

1

& n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor

2

of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,

3

1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially

5

related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with

6

“compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

7

disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); see

8

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records

9

generally exist “when such ‘court files might … become a vehicle for improper purposes,’”

10

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), such as: “to gratify private spite,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements,” id.; to “release trade secrets,” id.; or “as

12

sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto

13

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact

14

that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to

15

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d

16

at 1179. Further, “[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated

17

reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

18

In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local

19

Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the sealing motion to include “a specific statement of the

20

applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an

21

explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that

22

will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.”

23

Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), for any document a party seeks to

24

seal because that document has been designated as confidential by another party or non-party, the

25

filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material

26

Should Be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the Designating Party

27

must file a statement and/or declaration” to support that the document(s) at issue are sealable.

28

Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).
2

1

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The basis of Intel and Finjan’s requests is that

2
the portions of the Agreement sought to be sealed contain non-public information, including the
3
types of patents licensed and the financial terms of the agreement. See ECF No. 331 at 1;
4
ECF No. 335 at 1, ECF No. 337 ¶ 4; ECF No. 338 ¶ 4. Intel and Finjan assert that public disclosure
5
of the information could negatively impact their ability to negotiate for future licenses and
6
settlements. See ECF No. 331 at 1; ECF No. 335 at 1, ECF No. 337 ¶ 5; ECF No. 338 ¶ 5.
7

The Court finds that Intel and Finjan’s requests are compelling given the sensitive financial

8
and business information contained in the non-public portions of the Agreement. See, e.g., In re
9
Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding district court erred in denying
10

motion to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” in a license

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

agreement); Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., No. C 11-6121 CW, 2012 U.S. Dist.
12
LEXIS 75831, at **4–5 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2012) (finding compelling reasons to seal license
13
14

agreement containing “proprietary and confidential information, including provisions regarding the
calculation, payment, and amount of royalties [paid] on licensed products”). Accordingly, the Court

15
finds that Intel and Finjan have met the burden to show that the non-public portions of the
16
Agreement at issue can be filed under seal.
17
18

III.

ORDER
According to the above reasoning, Intel’s administrative motions are hereby GRANTED.

19
The Court DIRECTS Intel to file a redacted copy of the Agreement publicly on or before December
20
29, 2021.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: December 22, 2021
24
25
26

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

27
28
3