VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
Filing
726
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED ( 565 , 570 ); GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED ( 566 ); DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED ( 561 , 562 , 567 , 568 , 569 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/16/2023. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2023)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF
v.
10
INTEL CORPORATION,
11
Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED
[Re: ECF Nos. 561, 562, 565, 566, 567,
12
568, 569, 570]
13
14
15
16
Before the Court are Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Administrative Motions regarding its
17
Opposition to VLSI's Daubert Motion to Exclude Technical Opinions of Intel's Experts (ECF No.
18
560) (“Technical Opposition”) and its Opposition to VLSI's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions
19
of Intel's Experts (ECF No. 564) (“Damages Opposition”):
20
1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
21
Sealed in Connection with Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC's
22
Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Intel's Experts and Exhibits 1-5 Thereto. ECF
23
No. 561.
24
2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
25
Sealed in Connection with Exhibit 5 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology
26
LLC's Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Intel's Experts. ECF No. 562.
27
28
3. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed in Connection with Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC's
1
Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts and Exhibits 3-5 and 10
2
Thereto. ECF No. 565.
4. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
3
4
Sealed in Connection with Exhibits 2 and 7 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI
5
Technology LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts. ECF No.
6
566.
5. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
7
8
Sealed in Connection with Exhibit 2 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology
9
LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts. ECF No. 567.
6. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
11
Sealed in Connection with Exhibit 9 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology
12
LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts. ECF No. 568.
7. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
13
14
Sealed in Connection with Exhibits 2, 7, and 12 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI
15
Technology LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts. ECF No.
16
569.
8. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
17
18
Sealed in Connection with Exhibits 2, 7, 9, and 12 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff
19
VLSI Technology LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts.
20
ECF No. 570.
For the reasons described below, the Administrative Motions are GRANTED IN PART
21
22
23
and DENIED IN PART.
I.
BACKGROUND
24
Intel filed its Technical Opposition (ECF No. 560) and Damages Opposition (ECF No.
25
564) on August 15, 2023. Intel filed two Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another
26
Party's Material Should Be Sealed in connection with the Technical Opposition (ECF Nos. 561,
27
562) and six in connection with the Damages Opposition (ECF Nos. 565, 566, 567, 568, 569,
28
570). On September 1, 2023, Intel notified the Court that it had served non-parties corresponding
2
1
to ECF Nos. 566, 567, 568. ECF No. 610.
Plaintiff and several non-parties provided declarations regarding Intel’s Administrative
2
3
Motions:
1. Charlotte Wen submitted a Corrected Declaration on behalf of VLSI in support of
4
5
ECF Nos. 565, 567, and 568 which appears to correct ECF Nos. 631 and 633, two
6
declarations previously submitted by Ms. Wen. ECF No. 635
2. Thomas Mavrakakis submitted a Declaration and Exhibits on behalf of International
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
8
Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) in support of ECF No. 566. ECF Nos. 608,
9
630.
10
3. Charlotte Wen submitted a Declaration on behalf of NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc.,
11
NXP Semiconductors B.V. and Freescale Semiconductor Inc. (collectively “NXP”) in
12
support of ECF No. 570. ECF No. 621.
13
14
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
15
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of
16
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435
17
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
18
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
19
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
20
motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
21
of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
22
access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
23
1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
24
Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits
25
of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809
26
F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to
27
court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often
28
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal
3
1
the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule
2
26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard
3
requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
4
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
5
1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated
6
by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins.
7
Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
8
III.
DISCUSSION
The documents at issue in Intel’s motions to seal are associated with its Daubert motions.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
10
These opinions concern infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue in the case, available
11
damages for the alleged infringement, and efforts to strike or exclude expert opinions. These
12
issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore the parties must
13
provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety,
14
809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL
15
1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021).
16
A.
No party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, so the administrative
17
18
19
motion (ECF No. 561) is DENIED.
B.
22
23
ECF No. 562
No party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, so the administrative
20
21
ECF No. 561
motion (ECF No. 562) is DENIED.
C.
ECF No. 565
VLSI seeks to seal selected portions of Intel’s Damages Opposition (ECF No. 564) and
24
several of the exhibits. VLSI writes that the information should be sealed because it includes
25
“highly confidential information concerning VLSI’s damages theories in this case, VLSI’s
26
licensing efforts and history, and specific details regarding the terms of VLSI’s agreements with
27
NXP Semiconductors.” ECF No. 635 ¶ 7. VLSI contends that the analysis is narrowly tailored
28
because “VLSI is only seeking to seal the specific sections that reflect VLSI’s highly-confidential
4
1
2
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
3
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
4
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
5
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
6
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
7
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
8
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is
9
summarized below:
ECF or
Document
Exhibit No.
Ex. 2 to
Excerpts of the
Intel’s
Rebuttal Report
Opposition of Dr. Fay
to VLSI’s
Damages
Daubert
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
and proprietary damages analyses for the patents-in-suit..” Id. ¶ 10.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ex. 7 to
Intel’s
Opposition
to VLSI’s
Damages
Daubert
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ex. 9 to
Intel’s
Opposition
to VLSI’s
Damages
Daubert
Portion(s) to
Seal
Blue
highlighted
portions at p.
iv;
¶¶ 611, 830,
835–836,
846-848, 856,
877–879, 884–
885, 887–889
Ruling
Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions
reflect discussion of and references to highly
confidential and proprietary technical analyses
of the patents-in-suit, including proprietary
performance testing and analysis of physical
accused products, as well as analyses of
confidential licenses produced in this case.
Wen Decl. ¶¶ 9, 17. Disclosure of this
information could cause significant
competitive and business harms to VLSI, as
well as unfair advantage to Intel and other
potential license counterparties. See id. ¶¶ 8–
15, 19–22.
Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions
Excerpts of the Blue
highlighted
reflect discussion of and references to highlyRebuttal Report
portions
at
¶
16
confidential and proprietary damages analyses
of Ms. Kindler
of licenses produced in this case, including
royalty rates and licensing terms. Wen Decl.
¶ 9. Disclosure of this information could cause
significant competitive and business harms to
VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and
other potential license counterparties. See id.
¶¶ 8–15.
Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions
Excerpts of the Blue
highlighted
contain discussions of and references to highly
Rebuttal Report
portions
at
¶¶
confidential and proprietary damages analyses
of Dr. Perryman
20, 80, 83, 85, and methodologies for the patents-in-suit,
88, 90, 94, 97- public disclosure of which could result in
98, 102–03,
significant competitive and business harms to
107, 112-15,
VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and
118, 120, 122, other potential license counterparties. Wen
124, 128–32,
Decl. ¶¶ 8– 15.
134, 179, 189–
92, 194
5
D.
1
The following non-parties were served (ECF No. 610), but did not file declarations in
2
3
support of this administrative motion: Allied Security Trust I (AST), Verayo, Inc., P&IB Co.,
4
Ltd., Contour Semiconductor, Inc., Luminescent Technologies, Inc., Foundation for Advancement
5
of International Science (FAIS), Casio Computer Co. Ltd. The administrative motion (ECF No.
6
566) is DENIED with respect to those non-parties.
Thomas Mavrakakis submitted a declaration and exhibits on behalf of IBM requesting to
7
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ECF No. 566
8
seal portions of Exhibits 2 and 7 of Intel’s Damages Opposition. ECF No. 608 ¶ 3. The
9
declaration does not contain a chart, but Mavrakakis attached exhibits showing narrow redactions
10
corresponding to patent purchase agreements. ECF No. 630. The Mavrakakis Declaration details
11
how disclosure of the highlighted information would harm IBM’s business by “providing unfair
12
insight into IBM’s business strategies.” ECF No. 608 at ¶ 5. The Court agrees with IBM that this
13
meets the compelling interest standard and is narrowly tailored. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint,
14
Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding
15
“technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard);
16
Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D.
17
Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form
18
of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.).
19
E.
No party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, so the administrative
20
21
motion (ECF No. 567) is DENIED.
22
F.
ECF No. 568
No party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, so the administrative
23
24
ECF No. 567
motion (ECF No. 568) is DENIED.
25
G.
ECF No. 569
No party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, so the administrative
26
27
motion (ECF No. 569) is DENIED.
28
\\
6
1
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
H.
ECF No. 570
NXP seeks to seal selected portions of Intel’s Damages Opposition (ECF No. 564) and
3
several of the exhibits. VLSI writes that the information should be sealed because it includes
4
“confidential materials relating to its intellectual property licensing and monetization department,
5
including its practices, activities, and patent agreements entered into between NXP/Freescale and
6
other parties.” ECF No. 621 ¶ 5. VLSI contends that the analysis is narrowly tailored because “its
7
proposed redactions only to information that maintains in confidence in the regular course of its
8
business.” Id. ¶ 6.
9
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
10
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
11
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
12
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
13
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
14
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
15
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is
16
summarized below:
17
ECF or
Exhibit No.
Ex. 2 to
Intel’s
Opposition
to VLSI’s
Motion to
Exclude
Damages
Opinions
Document
Ex. 7 to
Intel’s
Opposition
to VLSI’s
Motion to
Exclude
Damages
Opinions
Excerpts from
the June 1,
2023 Rebuttal
Expert Report
of Lauren
Kindler
18
19
20
21
22
Portion(s) to
Seal
Excerpts from Blue-boxed
the June 1,
portions in p. iv;
2023 Rebuttal ¶¶ 570-571,
Expert Report 574-575, 611of Patrick Fay 615, 618, 622,
625, 628.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ruling
Granted, as the document identifies and
describes
(1) confidential patent agreements entered into
between NXP/Freescale and other parties, (2)
confidential intellectual property licensing and
monetization practices, activities, capabilities,
and efforts by NXP and Freescale, and (3)
confidential testimony from current and former
employees of NXP and Freescale regarding its
intellectual property practices.
Granted, as the document identifies and
Blue-boxed
describes (1) confidential patent agreements and
portions in ¶¶
negotiations entered into between NXP
15-18, 88-89,
91-92, 129, 130, /Freescale and other parties, (2) confidential
133, 137- 140, intellectual property licensing and monetization
practices, activities, capabilities, and efforts by
142-143, 146NXP
and
Freescale,
and (3)
152, 154-155,
confidential
testimony
from
current
and
former
157-160, 234employees
of
NXP
and
Freescale
regarding
its
236, 239, 240.
intellectual property practices.
7
1
2
3
4
5
Ex. 9 to
Intel’s
Opposition
to VLSI’s
Motion to
Exclude
Damages
Opinions
Excerpts from
the June 1,
2023 Rebuttal
Expert Report
of Dr. M. Ray
Perryman
Blue-boxed
portions in ¶¶
60, 68-69, 107,
174, 189-195,
197.
Granted, as the document identifies and
describes (1) confidential patent agreements and
negotiations
entered
into
between
NXP/Freescale and other parties,
(2) confidential intellectual property licensing
and
monetization
practices,
activities,
capabilities, and efforts by NXP and Freescale,
(3) confidential testimony from current and
former employees of NXP and Freescale
regarding its intellectual property practices, and
(4) confidential details regarding the terms of
the Patent Purchase and Cooperation
Agreement between NXP and VLSI.
Ex. 12 to
Intel’s
Opposition
to VLSI’s
Motion to
Exclude
Damages
Opinions
Appendix E to
the June 1,
2023 Rebuttal
Expert Report
of Lauren
Kindler
Blue-boxed
portions in
Appendices E1, E-2, and E11.
Granted, as the document identifies and
describes confidential patent agreements and
negotiations entered into between
NXP/Freescale and other parties.
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
IV.
ORDER
14
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1. ECF No. 561 is DENIED.
16
2. ECF No. 562 is DENIED.
17
3. ECF No. 565 is GRANTED.
18
4. ECF No. 566 GRANTED with respect to IBM; it is otherwise DENIED.
19
5. ECF No. 567 is DENIED.
20
6. ECF No. 568 is DENIED.
21
7. ECF No. 569 is DENIED.
22
8. ECF No. 570 is GRANTED.
23
24
25
26
Dated: October 16, 2023
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
27
28
8
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?