VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Filing 732

ORDER GRANTING 698 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. 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
SEAL
[Re: ECF No. 698]

12
Before the Court is Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

13
14

Portions of Intel's Opposition to VLSI Technology LLC's Motion for Relief from Nondispositive

15

Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 698 (“Administrative Motion”). For the reasons

16

described below, the Administrative Motion is GRANTED.

17

I.

BACKGROUND
On September 27, 2023, Intel filed its Oppositions to VLSI Technology LLC’s (“VLSI”)

18
19

Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 699

20

(“Opposition”). On the same day, Intel filed an Administrative Motion in connection with the

21

Opposition. ECF No. 698.

22
23

II.

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

III.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

DISCUSSION
The document at issue, Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Motion for Relief, is related to a

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Intel seeks to seal selected excerpts from its Opposition. Intel explains that “[d]isclosure of

13

information regarding Intel’s financial decisions and Intel’s marketing research and strategies

14

(e.g., Intel’s confidential analysis regarding what features Intel’s customers value, the potential

15

price premiums associated with those features, and how Intel expects certain features to affect the

16

sales of certain products) would provide competitors and potential counterparties with unfair

17

insight into Intel’s business strategies and cost/benefit analyses.” ECF No. 698 at 2. Intel further

18

argues, “[b]ecause of the highly confidential nature of the information Intel seeks to seal and the

19

potential harm that Intel could suffer in competition with other manufacturers, there is no less

20

restrictive alternative to sealing the requested information.” ECF No. 698-1 ¶ 9.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ECF or
Document
Exhibit No.

Portion(s) to
Seal

Intel’s
Green
Opposition to
highlighted
VLSI
portions
Technology
LLC’s Motion
for Relief From
Nondispositive
Pretrial Order of
Magistrate Judge

Ruling
Granted, as green highlighted portions reveal Intel’s
confidential analysis regarding what features Intel’s
customers value, the potential price premiums
associated with those features, and how Intel expects
certain features to affect the sales of certain products.
Selwyn Decl. ¶ 8.

28
2

1
2
3

IV.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Intel’s Administrative Motion

to Seal (ECF No. 698) 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
3