Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al
Filing
1035
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 1008 MOTION TO SEAL.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
TESSERA, INC.,
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
No. C 05-4063 CW
Plaintiff,
v.
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.;
SPANSION, LLC; SPANSION, INC.;
SPANSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.;
ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR
ENGINEERING, INC.; ASE (U.S.),
INC.; CHIPMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
CHIPMOS U.S.A., INC.; SILICONWARE
PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.;
SILICONWARE USA, INC.;
STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.;
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.; STATS
CHIPPAC, INC.; STATS CHIPPAC
(BVI), INC.; and STATS CHIPPAC,
LTD.,
ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING
IN PART MOTION TO
SEAL (Docket No.
1008)
Defendants.
________________________________/
Defendants STMicroelectronics, Inc. and STMicroelectronics
17
N.V. (collectively, the ST Defendants) move to file under seal
18
Exhibits A, B, H, J, K and L to the declaration of Ryan Sandrock
19
submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment related
20
to Tessera’s license-related claims.
The ST Defendants also move
21
to file under seal Exhibits A through D to the declaration of
22
Kevin M. Filip submitted in support of their motion.
Finally, the
23
ST Defendants move to file under seal the portions of their motion
24
that quote these exhibits.
The ST Defendants represent that
25
Tessera has designated these exhibits as confidential, and that
26
they have also designated Exhibit A to the Filip Declaration as
27
confidential.
28
The ST Defendants and Tessera have submitted
1
declarations in support of the motion to seal.
2
1008-1 and 1024.
3
See Docket Nos.
The parties seek to seal court records connected to a
4
dispositive motion.
5
the party who has designated them as confidential “must overcome a
6
strong presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons
7
supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general
8
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”
9
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)
To establish that the documents are sealable,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
(citation omitted).
11
stringent “good cause” standard is applied to sealed discovery
12
documents attached to non-dispositive motions).
13
established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
14
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
15
is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by
16
a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to
17
file each document under seal.
Cf. id. at 678 (explaining that a less
This cannot be
Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).
18
The ST Defendants and Tessera represent that Exhibit A to the
19
Filip declaration, which contains a license agreement entered into
20
between Tessera and SGS-Thompson Microelectronics, Inc., contains
21
“sensitive business information,” such as descriptions of
22
Tessera’s proprietary technology, “royalty rates, licensing terms
23
and details on the companies’ collaboration that would be damaging
24
to the parties if revealed to their competitors.”
25
¶ 4; Brenza Decl. ¶ 9.
26
that the parties have established that it and the portions of the
27
motion that quote from it are sealable.
Sandrock Decl.
Having reviewed Exhibit A, the Court finds
28
2
1
Tessera makes only conclusory statements that it has
2
designated the other exhibits as “containing confidential business
3
information under the Protective Order” in this case or in the
4
related case before the ITC.
5
Thus, Tessera has not established compelling reasons to file any
6
of these exhibits or the portions of the motion that quote from
7
them under seal.
8
9
See Brenza Decl. ¶¶ 3-8, 10-12.
For the reasons set forth above, the ST Defendants’ motion is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED in part (Docket No. 1008).
Within
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
three days of the date of this Order, the ST Defendants shall
11
electronically file under seal Exhibit A to the Filip Declaration
12
and their unredacted motion.
13
shall file in the public record Exhibits A, B, H, J, K and L to
14
the Sandrock declaration, Exhibits B through D to the Filip
15
Declaration, and a redacted version of their motion that conforms
16
with this Order.
17
By that date, the ST Defendants
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
Dated:
8/10/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
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?
