VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Filing 731

ORDER GRANTING 598 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 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.

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED
[Re: ECF No. 598]

12

Before the Court is VLSI Technology LLC’s (“VLSI”) Administrative Motion to Consider

13
14

Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed re VLSI's Reply Briefs in Support of its

15

Motions to Exclude and Exhibits Thereto. (ECF No. 598) (“Administrative Motion”). The

16

motion seeks to seal portions of VLSI’s Reply in Support of VLSI's CORRECTED Daubert

17

Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts (ECF No. 596) (“Damages Reply”) and

18

VLSI’s Reply in Support of VLSI's CORRECTED Daubert Motion to Exclude Technical

19

Opinions of Intel's Experts (ECF No. 597) (“Technical Reply”).
For the reasons described below, the Administrative Motion is GRANTED.

20
21
22

I.

BACKGROUND
On August 25, 2023, VLSI filed the Damages Reply (ECF No. 596), Technical Reply

23

(ECF No. 597), and Administrative Motion (ECF No. 598). On September 5, 2023, Intel

24

Corporation (“Intel”) filed a Declaration of Mark Selwyn in Support of Administrative Motion to

25

Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed and Exhibits. ECF Nos. 626

26

(“Selwyn Decl.”), 627. NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc., its non-party parent company NXP

27

Semiconductors B.V. as well as non-party Freescale Semiconductor Inc. (“Freescale”)

28

(collectively, “NXP”) filed several declarations in support of sealing (see, e.g., ECF Nos. 621,

1
2

625), but none call for redactions in connection with ECF No. 598.
II.

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

3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

III.

26

DISCUSSION
The documents at issue in VLSI’s motions to seal are associated with its Daubert motions.

27

These opinions concern infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue in the case, available

28

damages for the alleged infringement, and efforts to strike or exclude expert opinions. These
2

1

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

2

provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety,

3

809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL

4

1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021).
Intel seeks to seal selected portions of a single exhibit. Intel writes that the financial

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5
6

information should be sealed “because “[m]aintaining the confidentiality of technical information

7

about Intel’s product design and operation, including for proposed designs, and manufacturing

8

processes is critical to Intel’s business. Knowledge of this information by third parties would put

9

Intel at a competitive disadvantage in future product development and in its business dealings as

10

its competitors could incorporate that information into their own development strategies and

11

products to gain an unfair advantage over Intel in the market.” ECF No. 626 ¶ 13. Intel contends

12

that the analysis is “narrowly tailored to Intel’s manufacturing capacity and technical information

13

regarding the design and operation of the accused features.” Id. ¶ 16.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

summarized below:
ECF or
Document Portion(s) to
Exhibit No.
Seal

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ex. 43

Green-boxed
portions

Ruling
Granted, as green-boxed portions on pages 47 and 69
reveal highly confidential technical information regarding
design details and operation of accused product features
and features considered for incorporation into Intel
products; the development and testing of accused product
features; and Intel’s manufacturing capacity. Selwyn Decl.
¶¶ 15-16. Green-boxed portions on page 71 reveal highly
confidential information regarding the criteria that Intel
considers when determining prices for the accused
products. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 19, 21.

3

1
2
3

IV.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that VLSI Technology LLC’s

(“VLSI”) Administrative Motion (ECF No. 598) is GRANTED.

4
5
6
7

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

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4