VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
Filing
729
ORDER GRANTING 573 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 575 TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED. 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
v.
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF
10
INTEL CORPORATION,
11
Defendant.
12
13
14
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED; DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED
[Re: ECF Nos. 573, 575]
15
Before the Court are VLSI Technology LLC’s (“VLSI”) Administrative Motions regarding
16
17
its Opposition to Intel's Omnibus Daubert Motion to Exclude (“Opposition”):
18
1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
19
Sealed re: VLSI's Opposition and Exhibits to Intel's Daubert Motion. ECF No. 573.
20
2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
21
Sealed re: Confidential Information of Microsoft Corporation in VLSI's Opposition and
22
Exhibits to Intel's Daubert Motion. ECF No. 575.
23
24
25
For the reasons described below, the Administrative Motions are GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
I.
BACKGROUND
26
VLSI filed its Opposition to Intel's Omnibus Daubert Motion and corresponding
27
administrative motions on August 15, 2023. ECF No. 572. On August 30, 2023, VLSI notified
28
the Court that it had served Microsoft in connection with ECF No. 575. ECF No. 606. On
1
September 5, 2023, Intel Corporation (“Intel”) filed a Declaration of Mark Selwyn in Support of
2
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed and
3
Exhibits. ECF Nos. 623, 624 (“Selwyn Decl.”).
4
II.
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
5
United States District Court
Northern District of California
LEGAL STANDARD
6
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of
7
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435
8
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
9
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
10
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
11
motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
12
of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
13
access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
14
1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
15
Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits
16
of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809
17
F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to
18
court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often
19
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal
20
the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule
21
26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard
22
requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
23
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
24
1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated
25
by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins.
26
Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
27
III.
28
DISCUSSION
The documents at issue in VLSI’s motions to seal are associated with its Daubert motions.
2
1
These opinions concern infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue in the case, available
2
damages for the alleged infringement, and efforts to strike or exclude expert opinions. These
3
issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore the parties must
4
provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety,
5
809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL
6
1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
A.
ECF No. 573
8
Intel seeks to seal selected portions of VLSI’s Opposition and several of the exhibits. Intel
9
writes that the technical information should be sealed because “[m]aintaining the confidentiality of
10
technical information about Intel’s product design and operation, including for proposed designs,
11
and manufacturing processes is critical to Intel’s business. Knowledge of this information by third
12
parties would put Intel at a competitive disadvantage in future product development and in its
13
business dealings as its competitors could incorporate that information into their own development
14
strategies and products to gain an unfair advantage over Intel in the market.” ECF No. 623 ¶ 11.
15
Intel argues licensing information should be sealed because “maintaining the confidentiality of
16
Intel’s licensing information is also critical to Intel’s business. Public disclosure of information
17
regarding the payment terms from Intel’s license agreements, the scope of Intel’s license
18
agreements and other terms from Intel’s agreements could negatively affect Intel’s future licenses
19
and settlements and negotiations for such agreements.” Id. ¶ 13. Intel argues financial
20
information should be sealed because “Maintaining the confidentiality of Intel’s financial
21
information is also critical to Intel’s business. Disclosure of information regarding Intel’s
22
financials and financial decisions—such as product pricing; discounts and criteria Intel uses for
23
pricing; and Intel’s revenue, profits, and costs—would provide competitors and potential
24
counterparties with unfair insight into Intel’s business strategies and cost/benefit analyses.” Id. ¶
25
15. Intel argues that “The portions of VLSI’s memorandum and exhibits that Intel seeks to seal
26
are narrowly tailored to either the non-public technical information regarding the design and
27
operation of the accused features or the non-public financial and licensing information.” Id. ¶ 30.
28
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
3
1
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
2
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
3
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
4
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
5
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
6
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
7
8
9
10
ECF or
Document
Exhibit No.
VLSI’s
Opposition
Portion(s) to
Seal
Green-boxed
portions
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Ruling
Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 5-6, 8,
16, 21-23, and 25 reveal details and operation of
accused product features and features considered
for incorporation into Intel products; the
development and testing of accused product
features; Intel’s manufacturing capacity; and the
source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶
17a.
14
Furthermore, as green-boxed portions of pages 3
and 8 (line 3) reveals highly confidential
information about Intel’s sales volume and highly
confidential analysis regarding the financial benefit
to Intel of certain features. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 17b.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Ex. 27
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Internal Intel
presentation
entitled
“Favored
Core Turbo:
Productizing
Variability”
Green-boxed
portions
Furthermore, as green-boxed portions of pages 1314 and 18-19 reveal highly confidential
information regarding Intel’s licenses, including
payment terms from Intel’s license agreements and
the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Selwyn
Decl. ¶ 17c.
Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 2-6, 825, and 27-33 reveal details and operation of
accused product features and features considered
for incorporation into Intel products, the
development and testing of accused product
features, source code, and the performance benefit
to Intel of certain features. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 18a.
Furthermore, as green-boxed portions of pages 7,
10, and 11 reveal highly confidential information
regarding the financial benefit to Intel of certain
features and Intel’s costs. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 18b.
4
1
Ex. 28
Excerpt from
Rebuttal
Report of
John
Kubiatowicz,
Ph.D
Ex. 29
Excerpt from Green-boxed
the Reply
portions
Expert Report
of Dr.
Thomas M.
Conte
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Green-boxed
portions
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Ex. 30
13
14
15
Attachment
Green-boxed
A-4 to the
portions
April 20,
2023 Expert
Report of Dr.
Ryan Sullivan
16
17
18
Ex. 31
19
20
21
22
Excerpt from Green-boxed
Expert Report portions
of Dean P.
Neikirk
Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 249252 reveal details and operation of accused
product features and features considered for
incorporation into Intel products, the development
and testing of accused product features, and the
performance benefit to Intel of certain features.
Selwyn Decl. ¶ 19.
Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 204205, 207, 213, 230-232, 296, 306,
and 308 reveal details and operation of accused
product features and features considered for
incorporation into Intel products, the development
and testing of accused product features, and the
performance benefit to Intel of certain features.
Selwyn Decl. ¶ 20a.
Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 230
(paragraph 580) reveal highly confidential analysis
regarding the financial benefit to Intel of certain
features. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 20b.
Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 2, 3
(bottom of page) and 6 reveal details and operation
of accused product features and features
considered for incorporation into Intel products,
the development and testing of accused product
features, and the performance benefit to Intel of
certain features. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 21a.
Furthermore, green-boxed portions of page 3 (top
half of page) reveal highly confidential cost
information. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 21b.
Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 146151 and 154 reveal details and operation of
accused product features and features considered
for incorporation into Intel products, the
development and testing of accused product
features, the performance benefit to Intel of certain
features, and Intel’s manufacturing capacity.
Selwyn Decl. ¶ 22a.
23
24
25
Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 151,
153 reveal highly confidential financial
information about Intel’s costs. Selwyn Decl. ¶
22b.
26
27
28
5
1
Ex. 34
2
3
4
Ex. 35
5
6
Excerpt from
the Rebuttal
Expert Report
of Lauren
R. Kindler
Excerpt from
the Reply
Expert Report
of Mark
J. Chandler
Green-boxed
portions
Green-boxed portions reveal highly confidential
licensing information, including the scope of
Intel’s license agreements. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 23.
Green-boxed
portions
Granted, as green-boxed portions of Exhibit 35
except for Table 15 on page 130 (which is
addressed separately below) reveal highly
confidential licensing information, including
payment terms from Intel’s license agreements and
the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Selwyn
Decl. ¶ 24a. Intel also seeks to seal the names of
the counterparties to these agreements in Exhibit
35 because the names of counterparties to Intel’s
agreements are maintained in confidence by Intel,
and Intel is under confidentiality obligations to the
counterparties not to reveal that information. Id.
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Ex. 36
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Ex. 38
Exhibit 10A to
the April 20,
2023 Expert
Report of
Mark
J. Chandler
Excerpt from
the Expert
Report of Dr.
Thomas M.
Conte
Green-boxed
portions
Green-boxed
portions
Furthermore, green-boxed portion of page 130 of
Exhibit 35 reveals highly confidential financial
information about Intel’s sales volume. Selwyn
Decl. ¶ 24b.
Granted, as green-boxed portions of chart
summarizing Intel produced license agreements
reveal highly confidential license information,
including payment information and the scope of
Intel’s license agreements. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 25.
Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 67- 68,
72-78, 82-93, 177-179, 182-188, 190-203, 215224, 228-230,232-233, 443-475, 485-487, 489,
562-572, 639, 643-647, and 649-656 reveal details
and operation of accused product features and
features considered for incorporation into Intel
products, the development and testing of accused
product features, source code, and the performance
benefit to Intel of certain features. Selwyn Decl. ¶
26a.
Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 472475, 486-487, and 569 reveal or could be used to
derive highly confidential information regarding
Intel’s financials, such as Intel’s revenue and
costs, or reveal confidential analysis regarding the
financial benefit to Intel of certain features.
Selwyn Decl. ¶ 26b.
28
6
1
Ex. 40
2
3
4
Ex. 41
5
6
7
Ex. 42
8
9
Excerpt from
the transcript
of deposition
of Jeremy
Shrall
Excerpt from
an internal
highly
confidential
Intel
document
Excerpt from
the transcript
of deposition
of Doug
Ingerly
Green-boxed
portions
Green-boxed
portions
Green-boxed
portions
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
B.
12
Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal details and
operation of accused product features and features
considered for incorporation into Intel products,
and the development and testing of accused
product features. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 27.
Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal details
and operation of accused product features and
features considered for incorporation into Intel
products, and the development and testing of
accused product features. Selwyn
Decl. ¶ 28.
Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal details
and operation of accused product features and
features considered for incorporation into Intel
products, the development of accused product
features and manufacturing capacity. Selwyn
Decl. ¶ 29.
ECF No. 575
Microsoft did not file a declaration in support of this administrative motion, so the
13
administrative motion (ECF No. 575) is DENIED.
14
IV.
ORDER
15
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
16
1. ECF No. 573 is GRANTED.
17
2. ECF No. 575 is DENIED.
18
19
20
21
Dated: October 16, 2023
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?