Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al
Filing
1074
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING ( 1056 , 1064 ) MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2012)
<![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
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.,
No. C 05-4063 CW
ORDER GRANTING
MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL (Docket
Nos. 1056 and
1064)
Defendants.
________________________________/
Defendants STMicroelectronics, Inc. and STMicroelectronics
17
N.V. (collectively, the ST Defendants) move to file under seal
18
their unredacted reply in support of their motion for partial
19
summary judgment regarding patent exhaustion (Docket No. 1064).
20
Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. moves to seal its unredacted opposition to
21
the ST Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and to
22
various Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 1056).
23
The parties represent that they seek to seal the portions of their
24
briefs that refer to and quote the license agreement entered into
25
by Tessera, Inc. and third-party Motorola, Inc.
The Court
26
previously granted the parties’ request to file the license
27
agreement under seal, as well as the portions of Defendants’
28
1
opening brief for summary judgment that referred to and quoted the
2
license agreement.
3
parties have already filed redacted versions of their briefs in
4
the public record.
5
Docket No. 1034.
The Court notes that the
See Docket Nos. 1057 and 1065.
The parties seek to seal records connected to a dispositive
motion.
7
who has designated them as confidential “must overcome a strong
8
presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons
9
supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
6
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”
11
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)
12
(citation omitted).
13
stringent “good cause” standard is applied to sealed discovery
14
documents attached to non-dispositive motions).
15
established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
16
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
17
is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by
18
a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to
19
file each document under seal.
To establish that the documents are sealable, the party
Cf. id. at 678 (explaining that a less
This cannot be
Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
Having reviewed the briefs and the parties’ declarations in
2
support of their motions to seal, the Court concludes that they
3
have established that the references to the license agreement in
4
the memoranda are sealable.
5
under seal are GRANTED (Docket No. 1056 and 1064).
6
days of the date of this Order, the parties shall electronically
7
file under seal their unredacted briefs.
8
Accordingly, their motions to file
Within three
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Dated: 8/31/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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?
