VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 5:2017cv05671 - Document 909 (N.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS ( 869 , 870 , 875 , 877 , 878 , 879 , 889 , 890 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/8/2024. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2024)

Download PDF

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff, 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS v. 10 INTEL CORPORATION, 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF Nos. 869, 870, 875, 877, 878, 879, 889, 890] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Before the court are eight administrative motions filed in connection with VLSI Technology LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Counterclaim: 1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 869. 2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 870. 3. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Opposition to VLSI Technology LLC's 21 Motion to Dismiss Intel's Second Amended Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims. 22 ECF No. 875. 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 877. 5. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 878. 6. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 879. 7. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 1 Sealed. ECF No. 889. 2 8. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 3 Sealed. ECF No. 890. 4 For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS the administrative motions. 5 6 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 8 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 9 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 10 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 11 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 12 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 13 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 14 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 15 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 16 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 17 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 18 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 19 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 20 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 21 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 22 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 23 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 24 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 25 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 26 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 27 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 28 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 2 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. 3 VLSI filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material ECF No. 869 4 Should Be Sealed on February 23, 2024. ECF No. 869. Intel submitted a declaration and exhibits 5 in support of sealing. ECF Nos. 871, 872. Intel seeks to seal selected portions of the motion and 6 its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 871. Intel writes that the information should be sealed 7 because “[k]nowledge of this information by third parties would put Intel at a competitive 8 disadvantage in future business dealings as its competitors could incorporate that information into 9 their own business strategies to gain an unfair advantage over Intel in the market.” Id. ¶ 11. Intel 10 United States District Court Northern District of California II. argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 12. 11 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 12 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 14 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 15 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 16 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 17 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 18 19 20 21 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Exhibit No. 868 VLSI’s Motion Green-highlighted portions to Dismiss on pages 6-9 22 23 24 Ex. 1 25 26 27 28 Ruling Granted, as the green-highlighted portions contain highly confidential excerpts from Intel’s license agreement with Finjan that the Court has previously sealed. Dkt. 339; Dkt. 659; Dkt. 784; Dkt. 853; Dkt. 863. Intel’s Motion Green-highlighted portion on Granted, as the green-highlighted portions contain highly to Amend, page 3 confidential excerpts from Intel’s Sever, and Stay license agreement with Finjan (W.D. Tex.) that the Court has previously sealed. Dkt. 339; Dkt. 659; Dkt. 784; Dkt. 853; Dkt. 863. 3 1 Intel’s Motion to Stay (W.D. Tex.) Ex. 2 2 Green-highlighted portions on page 4 3 United States District Court Northern District of California 4 Granted, as the green-highlighted portions contain highly confidential excerpts from Intel’s license agreement with Finjan that the Court has previously sealed. Dkt. 339; Dkt. 659; Dkt. 784; Dkt. 853; Dkt. 863. 5 B. 6 VLSI filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material 7 Should Be Sealed on February 23, 2024. ECF No. 870. Finjan LLC (“Finjan”) submitted a 8 declaration and exhibits in support of sealing. ECF Nos. 873, 874. Finjan seeks to seal selected 9 portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 873. Finjan writes that the ECF No. 870 10 information should be sealed because the documents “reference and/or quote to language from 11 non-public portions of a confidential patent license and settlement agreement between Intel and 12 Finjan Inc. and Finjan Software, Inc.” Id. ¶ 5. Finjan argues that the portions are narrowly 13 tailored. Id. 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. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: ECF or Exhibit No. ECF No. 868 Docum Portion(s) to Seal ent Ruling VLSI’s Motion to Dismiss Granted, as these portions of VLSI’s Motion to Dismiss cite to, and/or reflect highly confidential, non-public information relating to Finjan’s licenses and license agreement terms, which the Court has previously sealed via this Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339 and again at ECF No. 769 and 863. The redacted portions of VLSI’s Motion to Dismiss, at: • page 6 at portions of lines 5-6; • page 7 at the word in line 21; • page 8 at portions of lines 1-2, 4, 14-15, 16 (full line), 19-21, 22- 23 (full lines), and 24; • page 9, portions of lines 1-2, 4 1 ECF 870-3 Exhibit Green highlighted portions at page 1 to 3. VLSI’s Motion to Dismiss ECF 870-4 Exhibit 2 to VLSI’s Motion to Dismiss ECF 870-7 Exhibit 5 to VLSI’s Motion to Dismiss 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Granted, as these portions cite to, and/or reflect highly confidential, nonpublic information relating to Finjan’s licenses and license agreement terms, which the Court has previously sealed via this Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339 and again at ECF No. 769 and 863. Green highlighted portions at page Granted, as these portions cite to, and/or reflect highly confidential, non4. public information relating to Finjan’s licenses and license agreement terms, which the Court has previously sealed via this Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339 and again at ECF No. 769 and 863. Green highlighted portion at page Granted, as these portions cite to, and/or reflect highly confidential, non2. public information relating to Finjan’s licenses and license agreement terms, which the Court has previously sealed via this Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339 and again at ECF No. 769 and 863. 13 C. 14 Intel filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Opposition to VLSI Technology ECF No. 875 15 LLC's Motion to Dismiss Intel's Second Amended Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims on 16 March 1, 2024. ECF No. 875. Intel seeks to seal selected portions of the brief. Id. Intel writes 17 that the information should be sealed because “Disclosure of licensing information regarding 18 Intel’s prior license agreements, such as the scope of Intel’s licenses and other terms from Intel’s 19 agreements, would provide competitors and potential counterparties with unfair insight into Intel’s 20 business strategies and cost/benefit analyses.” Id. at 3. Intel argues that the portions are narrowly 21 tailored. Id. 22 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 23 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 24 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 25 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 26 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 27 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 28 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 5 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ECF or Document Exhibit No. Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Motion to Dismiss Intel’s Second Amended Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Green highlighted portions of 1:13- 14, 1:22, 7:7-13, 7:15, 7:1718, 8:2-3, 8:24, 9:4, 9:7, 9:9, 9:11-12, 9:14, 9:2728, 10:2-3. Granted, as the green highlighted portions on page 1, lines 13-14 and 22; page 7, lines 7-13, 15, and 1718; page 8, lines 2-3 and 24; page 9, lines 4, 7, 9, 11- 12, 14, and 27-28; and page 10, lines 2-3 contain a highly confidential excerpt from Intel’s license agreement with Finjan that the Court has previously sealed. Dkt. 339; Dkt. 659; Dkt. 784; Dkt. 853; Dkt. 863. 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 10 D. 11 Intel filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should ECF No. 877 12 Be Sealed on March 1, 2024. ECF No. 877. Intel filed a certificate of service on March 4, 2024, 13 ECF No. 880, and Finjan submitted a declaration in support of sealing. ECF No. 882. Finjan 14 seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 877. Finjan 15 writes that the information should be sealed because the documents “reference and/or quote to 16 language from non-public portions of a confidential patent license and settlement agreement 17 between Intel and Finjan Inc. and Finjan Software, Inc.” Id. ¶ 5. Finjan argues that the portions 18 are narrowly tailored. Id. 19 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 20 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 21 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 22 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 23 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 24 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 25 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 26 27 \\ 28 \\ 6 1 2 3 4 ECF or Document Exhibit No. ECF No. Intel’s 876 (see Opposition ECF No. 875-3) 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Portion(s) to Seal Ruling The redacted/green-boxed portions of Intel’s Opposition as reflected in ECF No. 876 (and ECF 8753). These redactions/green boxed portions are at: • page 1 at portions of lines 13-14 and 22; • page 7 at portions of lines 7-13, 15, and 1718; • page 8 at portions of lines 2-3, and 24; • page 9 at portions of lines 4, 7, 9, 11-12, 14, and 27-28; and • page 10, portions of lines 2-3. Granted, as these portions of Intel’s Opposition cite to, and/or reflect highly confidential, nonpublic information relating to Finjan’s licenses and license agreement terms, which the Court has previously sealed via this Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339 and again at ECF No. 769 and 863. 13 14 E. ECF No. 878 15 Intel filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should 16 Be Sealed on March 1, 2024. ECF No. 878. Intel filed a certificate of service on March 6, 2024, 17 ECF No. 884, and NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. (“NXP”) submitted a declaration and exhibits 18 in support of sealing. ECF Nos. 886, 887. NXP seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its 19 corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 886. NXP writes that the information should be sealed because 20 “The portions of the deposition transcript that NXP seeks to seal all relate to highly-confidential 21 information regarding its past and current intellectual property licensing and monetization 22 objectives, strategies, practices, capabilities, and efforts. Public disclosure of this information 23 would provide NXP’s competitors with sensitive information regarding NXP’s internal business 24 practices, as well as its relationships with other companies in the semiconductor industry and the 25 patent licensing industry, thus disadvantaging NXP in future business and contract negotiations.” 26 Id. ¶ 8. NXP argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 5. 27 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 28 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 7 1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 2 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 3 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 4 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 5 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: ECF or Exhibit No. ECF No. 878-02 Ex. 1 to Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Motion to Dismiss Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Excerpts from the July 26, 2019 Deposition of Lee Chastain Blue-highlighted portions at 179:7- 18. Granted, as the highlighted testimony identifies and describes (1) confidential patent agreements entered into between NXP/Freescale and other parties; and (2) confidential business information regarding corporate objectives and strategy. See infra ¶¶ 6–10. 13 14 F. 15 Intel filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should ECF No. 879 16 Be Sealed on March 1, 2024. ECF No. 879. Intel filed a certificate of service on March 4, 2024, 17 ECF No. 880, and Fortress Investment Group LLC (“Fortress”) submitted a declaration in support 18 of sealing. ECF Nos. 883. Fortress seeks to seal selected portions an exhibit. Id. Fortress writes 19 that the information should be sealed because “[t]his document reflects and contains highly 20 sensitive and proprietary Fortress internal business data and information regarding financial 21 analysis and methods, investment analyses, acquisition strategies, corporate formation and 22 management, and financial and accounting data.” Id. ¶ 9. Fortress argues that the portions are 23 narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 12. 24 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 25 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 26 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 27 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 28 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 8 1 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 2 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 3 4 5 6 7 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: ECF or Document Exhibit No. Ex. 2 VLSI Technology LLC Report 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Portions highlighted in green Granted, as this document is a highly sensitive and proprietary on first, second, and third internal financial analysis pages. document. It contains investment, financial, and accounting information, and reflects proprietary financial analysis methods that constitute confidential business information. Redacted portions also include personal information that is not relevant to any matter in this case. 13 G. 14 VLSI filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material ECF No. 889 15 Should Be Sealed on March 8, 2024. ECF No. 889. Intel submitted a declaration and exhibits in 16 support of sealing. ECF Nos. 891, 892. Intel seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its 17 corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 891. Intel writes that the information should be sealed because 18 “[d]isclosure of licensing information regarding Intel’s prior license agreements, such as the scope 19 of Intel’s licenses and other terms from Intel’s agreements, would provide competitors and 20 potential counterparties with unfair insight into Intel’s business strategies and cost/benefit 21 analyses..” Id. ¶ 8. Intel argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 7. 22 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 23 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 24 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 25 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 26 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 27 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 28 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 9 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 ECF or Exhibit Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling No. 888 (public VLSI’s Green-highlighted Granted, as the green-highlighted redacted version) Reply portions of the Table of portions in the Table of Contents and 889-02 Contents, 2:14-16, 2:23- on page 2, lines 14-16 and 23-27; page (unredacted 27, 3:2-6, 3:8, 3:15-16, 3, lines 2-6, 8, 15-16, and 18; and version filed 3:18, 4:1-5, 4:7-9, 4:12, page 4, lines 1-5, 7-9, 12, 14-15, and under seal as an 19 contain highly confidential 4:14-15, 4:19. Exhibit to excerpts from Intel’s license VLSI’s agreement with Finjan that the Court Administrative has previously sealed. Dkt. 339; Dkt. Motion) 659; Dkt. 784; Dkt. 853; Dkt. 863. 10 H. ECF No. 890 11 VLSI filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material 12 Should Be Sealed on March 8, 2024. ECF No. 890. Finjan submitted a declaration in support of 13 sealing. ECF Nos. 893. Finjan seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding 14 exhibits. Id. Finjan writes that the information should be sealed because “the confidential terms 15 in the Patent License Settlement Agreement, including the compensation terms, patents licensed, 16 and other substantive provisions, are maintained as highly confidential within Finjan to only those 17 with a need to know, and may be disclosed in litigation only when relevant and under the highest 18 level of confidentiality.” Id. ¶ 6. Finjan argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 5. 19 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 20 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 21 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 22 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 23 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 24 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 25 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 26 27 \\ 28 \\ 10 1 2 3 ECF or Document Exhibit No. ECF No. VLSI’s Reply 888 4 5 6 7 8 9 Portion(s) to Seal Ruling The redacted portions of VLSI’s Reply as reflected in ECF No. 888. These redactions are at: • page i (quotes in items II(A)(1) and (2); • page 2, portions of lines 14-16, and 23-27; • page 3, portions of lines 2-6, 8, 15-16, and 18; and • page 4, portions of lines 1-5, 7-9, 12, 14-15, and 19. Granted, as these portions of VLSI’s Reply cite to, and/or reflect highly confidential, nonpublic information relating to Finjan’s licenses and license agreement terms, which the Court has previously sealed via this Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339 and again at ECF No. 769 and 863. 10 III. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. ECF No. 869 is GRANTED. 2. ECF No. 870 is GRANTED. 3. ECF No. 875 is GRANTED. 4. ECF No. 877 is GRANTED. 5. ECF No. 878 is GRANTED. 6. ECF No. 879 is GRANTED. 7. ECF No. 889 is GRANTED. 8. ECF No. 890 is GRANTED. 20 21 22 23 Dated: April 8, 2024 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 11

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.