VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Filing 784

ORDER GRANTING 783 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/29/2023. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2023)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

INTEL CORPORATION,

11

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL
[Re: ECF No. 783]

12
13

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of

14

Supplemental Order Denying Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment on Intel’s License Defense.

15

ECF No. 783 (“Motion”). For the reasons discussed below the Motion is GRANTED.

16
17

I.

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

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

DISCUSSION
The document at issue is the Court’s order regarding the parties’ motions for summary

13

judgment, which concerns infringement of the asserted patents. These issues are “more than

14

tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore the parties must provide “compelling

15

reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see

16

also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D.

17

Cal. Feb. 10, 2021).

18

Intel argues that green-highlighted information should be sealed because “[d]isclosure of

19

licensing information regarding Intel’s prior license agreements, such as the types of patents

20

licensed and payment terms from Intel’s agreements and the scope of Intel’s licenses, would

21

provide competitors and potential counterparties with unfair insight into Intel’s business strategies

22

and cost/benefit analyses.” ECF No. 783 at 3. VLSI argues that blue-highlighted information

23

should be sealed because “[t]he disclosure of these details, including proprietary contractual terms

24

and practices, would significantly harm VLSI’s business and licensing efforts, including by

25

interfering with VLSI’s ability to license its patent portfolio to other companies in the

26

semiconductor industry by giving Intel, and other potential counterparties, an unfair advantage in

27

future negotiations with VLSI.” Id. at 4. The parties bolster these arguments by providing

28

additional details in the declarations of Mark Selwyn and Charlotte Wen. See ECF No. 783-1
2

1

(“Selwyn Decl.”); ECF No. 783-2 (“Wen Decl.”).

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 summarized below:

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ECF No.
ECF No.
781

Document
Supplemental
Summary Judgment
Order

Portion(s) to Seal
Green highlighted
portions

ECF No.
781

Supplemental
Summary Judgment
Order

Blue highlighted
portions

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

III.

Ruling
Granted, as the green-highlighted
portions contain highly confidential
information that the Court has
previously sealed. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 9;
ECF No. 339.
Granted, as the blue-highlighted
portions contain highly confidential and
proprietary details of the Patent
Purchase and Cooperation Agreement
between VLSI and NXP ("PPCA"),
public disclosure of which could result
in significant competitive and business
harms to VLSI, and which this Court
has sealed in the past. See Wen Decl. ¶¶
7, 8-9; see also ECF No. 767.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Seal at ECF

No. 783 is GRANTED.

23
24
25
26

Dated: December 29, 2023
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

27
28
3