VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Filing 730

ORDER GRANTING 593 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED; DENYING ( 594 , 595 ) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS 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 No. 593, 594, 595]

15
Before the Court are Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Administrative Motions regarding its

16
17

Reply in support of Omnibus Daubert Motion (ECF No. 592):

18

1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be

19

Sealed. ECF No. 593.

20

2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be

21

Sealed. ECF No. 594.

22

3. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be

23

Sealed. ECF No. 595.

24
25
26
27
28

For the reasons described below, the Administrative Motions are GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
I.

BACKGROUND
Intel filed its Reply in support of its Omnibus Daubert Motion and corresponding

administrative motions on August 25, 2023. ECF No. 592. On August 30, 2023, Intel notified the

1

Court that it had served Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) in connection with

2

ECF No. 595. ECF No. 610. On September 5, 2023, VLSI Technology LLC (“VLSI”) filed a

3

Corrected Declaration of Charlotte J. Wen in support of several sealing motions including ECF

4

No. 593. ECF Nos. 635 (“Wen Decl.”).

5

II.

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

6

United States District Court
Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

7

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of

8

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435

9

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

10

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

11

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

12

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

13

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

14

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

15

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

16

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits

17

of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809

18

F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to

19

court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often

20

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal

21

the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule

22

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard

23

requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

24

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

25

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

26

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins.

27

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

28

\\
2

1

DISCUSSION

2

The document at issue, Reply in support of Omnibus Daubert Motion, is related to a

3

motion to strike VLSI’s expert opinions related to available damages for the alleged infringement.

4

These issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore the

5

parties must provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for

6

Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659

7

WHA, 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021).

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

III.

A.

ECF No. 593

9

VLSI seeks to seal selected portions of Intel’s Reply in support of Omnibus Daubert

10

Motion (ECF No. 592). ECF No. 635. VLSI writes that the information should be sealed because

11

it includes “highly confidential information concerning VLSI’s damages theories in this case,

12

VLSI’s licensing efforts and history, and specific details regarding the terms of VLSI’s

13

agreements with NXP Semiconductors.” ECF No. 635 ¶ 7. VLSI contends that the analysis is

14

narrowly tailored because “VLSI is only seeking to seal the specific sections that reflect VLSI’s

15

highly-confidential and proprietary damages analyses for the patents-in-suit..” Id. ¶ 10.

16

The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the

17

document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1

18

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under

19

“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,

20

2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential

21

business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons

22

standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is

23

summarized below:
ECF or
Document
Exhibit No.
ECF No.
Excerpts of
591
the Reply
Ex. 2 to
Report of
Intel’s
Dr. Conte
Reply to Its
Omnibus
Daubert

24
25
26
27
28

Portion(s)
to Seal
Blue
highlighted
portions at
¶¶ 105–06

Ruling
The blue-highlighted portions reflect highly-confidential
and proprietary technical analyses for two of the
patents-in-suit, including proprietary performance
testing and analysis of physical accused products. Wen
Decl. ¶¶ 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. ¶¶ 19–22.
3

B.

1

NXP filed a declaration in support of this and other administrative motions (ECF No. 625),

2
3

but it does not seek to seal anything from Intel’s Reply, so the administrative motion (ECF No.

4

594) is DENIED.

5

C.

ECF No. 595
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) did not file a declaration in support of

6
7

this administrative motion, so the administrative motion (ECF No. 595) is DENIED.

8

IV.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ECF No. 594

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1. ECF No. 593 is GRANTED.

11

2. ECF No. 594 is DENIED.

12

3. ECF No. 595 is DENIED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: October 16, 2023
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4