VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 5:2017cv05671 - Document 690 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 617 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL; GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED (RE 537 , 538 ); DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIA L SHOULD BE SEALED (RE 539 , 551 , 552 ); GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 540 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/26/2023. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2023)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation Doc. 690 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1 of 20 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 v. 10 INTEL CORPORATION, 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL; GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED [Re: ECF Nos. 537, 538, 539, 540, 551, 552, and 617] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Before the Court are Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Administrative Motions regarding its Omnibus Daubert Motion and Exhibits (ECF No. 541): 1. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Renewed) Portions of Its Omnibus Daubert Motion and Exhibits 1-11, 13, 16-18, 20, and 22-24. ECF No. 617. 2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 22 Sealed in Connection with Intel's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 23 Its Omnibus Daubert Motion and Exhibits 1-15, 18, 20, 22, and 23 Thereto. ECF No. 24 537. 25 3. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 26 Sealed in Connection with Exhibits 1 and 2 to Intel's Memorandum of Points and 27 Authorities in Support of Its Omnibus Daubert Motion. ECF No. 538. 28 4. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 2 of 20 1 Sealed in Connection with Exhibit 5 to Intel's Memorandum of Points and Authorities 2 in Support of Its Omnibus Daubert Motion. ECF No. 539. 5. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 3 4 Sealed in Connection with Intel's Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support 5 Of Its Omnibus Daubert Motion and Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 16, and 17 filed by Intel 6 Corporation. ECF No. 540. 6. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be United States District Court Northern District of California 7 8 Sealed in Connection with Intel's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 9 Its Omnibus Daubert Motion and Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 16, and 17. ECF No. 551. 10 7. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 11 Sealed in Connection with Exhibits 1 and 2 to Intel's Memorandum of Points and 12 Authorities in Support of Its Omnibus Daubert Motion 541 filed by Intel Corporation. 13 ECF No. 552. For the reasons described below, the motions are GRANTED. 14 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Intel filed its Omnibus Daubert Motion (“Motion”) on July 25, 2023. ECF No. 541. That 17 same day, Intel filed an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal regarding Intel’s information in 18 the Motion. ECF No. 536. The Court denied that administrative motion (see ECF No. 577) 19 without prejudice, and Intel filed a renewed motion on September 5, 2023. ECF No. 617. 20 Intel filed four additional motions on July 25, 2023 seeking to seal other parties’ 21 information in connection with the Motion. ECF No. 537 (VLSI); ECF No. 538 (NXP USA, Inc. 22 (“NXP”) and Franklin FundingCo, LLC); ECF No. 539 (Microsoft Corporation, HP, Inc., and 23 Lenovo Group Limited); ECF No. 540 (Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, MicroUnity 24 Systems Engineering, Inc., NVIDIA Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, 25 Foundation for Advancement of International Science, Daedalus Prime LLC, Daedalus Group 26 LLC, UNM Rainforest Innovations, Tahoe Research, Ltd., IP Value Management Group, LLC, 27 IPValue Management, Inc., Longitude Licensing Limited). 28 On July 27, Intel filed two additional sealing motions seeking to seal other parties’ 2 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 3 of 20 1 information in connection with the Motion. ECF No. 551 (Dell Inc.); ECF No. 552 (Test 2 Research, Inc., VIA Technologies, Inc., Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc., Acer Incorporated, and/or 3 Sharp Corporation). 4 On August 21, 2023, Intel notified the Court that it had served the following parties (see 5 ECF No. 578): Microsoft Corporation, HP, Inc., Lenovo Group Limited, International Business 6 Machines Corporation, Daedalus Group LLC, Daedalus Prime LLC, Longitude Licensing 7 Limited, Tahoe Research Ltd., IP Value Management Group LLC, IPValue Management, Inc., 8 and Dell Inc.); 9 On September 1, 2023, Intel notified the Court that it had served the following parties (see 10 ECF No. 610): NVIDIA Corporation UNM Rainforest Innovations Acer Incorporated Sharp Corp. 11 Test Research USA, Inc. VIA Technologies, Inc. Allied Security Trust I (AST) Casio Computer 12 Co. Ltd. International Business Machines Corporation Contour Semiconductor Inc. KLA-Tencor, 13 which acquired Luminescent Technologies, Inc. P&IB Co., Ltd. Verayo, Inc. TechInsights Inc., 14 which acquired Chipworks Inc. Fortress Investment Group LLC Finjan Software, Inc. and Finjan, 15 Inc. Foundation for Advancement of International Science (FAIS) Wisconsin Alumni Research 16 Foundation Microsoft Corporation. Intel further notified the Court the Plaintiff VLSI served NXP. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff and several non-parties provided declarations regarding Intel’s Administrative Motions: 1. ECF No. 617: no declarations in support of sealing other than those filed with ECF No. 617. 21 2. ECF No. 537: Corrected Declaration of Charlotte J. Wen and exhibits (VLSI). The 22 Court disregards ECF Nos. 631 and 632, which ECF No. 635 appears to correct. 23 3. ECF No. 538: Declaration of Charlotte J. Wen and exhibits (NXP). ECF Nos. 621, 24 625. 25 4. ECF No. 539: no declarations in support of sealing. 26 5. ECF No. 540: 27 a. Declaration of Mavrakakis and exhibits (IBM). ECF No. 608, 630. 28 b. Declaration of Boaz Brickman (IPValue Management, Inc., IPValue 3 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 4 of 20 Management Group, LLC, and Tahoe Research, Ltd.). ECF No. 609. 1 c. Declaration of Elizabeth J. Kuttilla (UNMRI). ECF No. 615. 2 3 6. ECF No. 551: no declarations in support of sealing. 4 7. ECF No. 552: no declarations in support of sealing. 5 United States District Court Northern District of California 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 7 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 8 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 9 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 10 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 11 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 12 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 13 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 14 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 15 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 16 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 17 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 18 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 19 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 20 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 21 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 22 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 23 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 24 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 25 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 26 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 27 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 28 4 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 5 of 20 1 III. The documents at issue in Intel’s motions to seal are associated with its Daubert motions. 2 3 These opinions concern infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue in the case, available 4 damages for the alleged infringement, and efforts to strike or exclude expert opinions. These 5 issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore Intel must 6 provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 7 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 8 1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). A. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California DISCUSSION ECF No. 617 10 Intel seeks to seal selected excerpts from its Motion for Summary Judgment and several of 11 the exhibits. Intel argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the material it seeks to seal “because 12 maintaining the confidentiality of the technical information regarding Intel’s product design and 13 operation, including proposed designs, and manufacturing processes is critical to Intel’s business.” 14 ECF No. 617 at 11. Intel further explains that “[k]nowledge of this information by third parties 15 would put Intel at a competitive disadvantage in future product development and in its business 16 dealings as its competitors could incorporate that information into their own development 17 strategies and products to gain an unfair advantage over Intel in the market.” Id. Intel bolsters 18 these arguments by providing additional details in the declaration of Mark Selwyn. See Selwyn 19 Decl. (ECF No. 617-1). 20 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 21 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 22 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 23 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 24 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 25 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 26 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is 27 summarized below: 28 \\ 5 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 6 of 20 1 ECF or Exhibit No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 Exhibit 1 Document Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion Portion(s) to Seal Green-boxed portions Excerpt of the Green boxed April 20, 2023 Expert Report of Ryan Sullivan, Ph.D portions Ruling Granted, as green-boxed portions contain highly confidential information regarding Intel’s licenses, including the scope of Intel’s license agreements and other confidential licensing information. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 17. Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 39 (paragraphs 79, 80), 42, 43, 45, 47, 52-56, 169 (paragraph 301), 170, 180-186, 188, 190-191, 194-195, 196 (paragraph 364), 204-211, 216-218, Attachment B-1 and B-2 of Exhibit 1 reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; Intel’s manufacturing capacity; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 18a. Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 9, 39 (paragraph 82), 40, 41, 91-98, 100-101, 109, 114, 125, 139, 141, 143, 144, 166, 171, 176187, 190-191, 196 (paragraph 366), 197-199, 201-202, 205-207, 212-214, 219-232, 237, 247-248, Attachments D-1, D-2, D-3, D-6, D7, D-8, F-7, F-8, F-9, G-2, H-1, H-2, H-3, H4, I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4, I-5, J-1 through J-19, K-1, L-1, L-2, M-6, M-7, N-1, N-8, N-10, N-11, N-14 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s financial decisions such as Intel’s revenues, profits and costs; Intel’s quarterly profit bonus program; sales volume; market research about willingness to pay for various features; market research regarding how features will affect Intel’s competitiveness; analysis regarding how implementation of certain design choices could affect Intel’s costs; and Intel’s pricing strategy, including discounts and rebates. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 18b. Furthermore, green-boxed portions of Attachments F-1, F- 2, F-3, F-4, F-6, L-3, M9, M-10 through M-16 could be used to derive Intel’s confidential financial information, including product price and the volume of 6 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 7 of 20 Intel’s sales. Id. 1 Furthermore, green-boxed portions of Attachments N-1, N- 4, N-5, N-10, N-11, N12, N-13, N-14, N-15 reveal confidential MMIDs (unique identifier Intel assigns to products). Intel’s sales, billing, and pricing records are kept based on MMIDs and therefore these confidential MMIDs could reveal to competitors Intel’s confidential strategy decisions regarding how Intel subdivides its products into different MMIDs, packaging of Intel’s products, pricing, and other confidential business strategy information. Id. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Exhibit 2 Excerpt of the June 22, 2023 Reply Report of Ryan Sullivan, Ph.D Green boxed portions Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 66, 77-84, 239, and Attachment E-1 of Exhibit 1 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s licenses, including payment terms from Intel’s license agreements and the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 18c. Granted, as green-boxed portions of 42-45, 8688, 90-92, 95-99, 106, 107, 108, 110, 114-115, Attachments A-8, A-9, A-10 of Exhibit 2 reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 19a. 27 Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 4, 48 (paragraph 95), 49, 50, 55, 74, 106, 108 (fn. 640), 111, 113, 114, 116-118, 120-124, 126, 128-130, Attachments J-7a, J-8a, J-9a, J-10a, O-1, O-4, O-5, O-6, O-7, O-8, O-9, and O-10 of Exhibit 2 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s financial decisions such as product pricing, Intel’s revenues, profits and costs, Intel’s quarterly profit bonus program, sales volume, confidential analysis regarding the financial benefit to Intel of certain features and Intel’s pricing strategy. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 19b. 28 Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 8 of 20 61-63, 70-71, and Attachments O-11 and O12 could be used to derive Intel’s confidential financial information, including product price and the volume of Intel’s sales. Id. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 Exhibit 3 Excerpt of the April 20, 2023 Expert Report of Mark J. Chandler Green boxed portions Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 5, 48 (paragraph 94), 136-137, and 143 of Exhibit 2 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s licenses, including payment terms from Intel’s license agreements and the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Intel also seeks to seal the names of the counterparties to these agreements in Exhibit 2 because the names of counterparties to Intel’s agreements are maintained in confidence by Intel, and Intel is under confidentiality obligations to the counterparties not to reveal that information. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 19c. Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 107108, 110-121, 123, 167, 180, 189, 190, 191, and Appendix A at 5 of Exhibit 3 reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 20a. Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 104, 107-109, 121 (paragraphs 332, 333), 122129, 131-133, 146, 166, 172, 173, 181, 186, 191 (paragraphs 526, 528, 529), 192 (paragraph 532), Appendix A at 3, and Appendix B of Exhibit 3 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s financial decisions such as product pricing; Intel’s revenues, profits, and costs; sales volume analysis regarding the financial benefit to Intel of certain features; and analysis of the importance of features, including to revenue and customer demand and resulting marketing strategy. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 20b. Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 129-130 of Exhibit 3 include confidential competitive analysis, along with recommended responses. Id. 28 8 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 9 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Exhibit 4 Excerpt of the Green boxed June 22, 2023 portions Reply Expert Report of Mark J. Chandler Exhibit 5 Excerpt of the April 20, 2023 Expert Report of Thomas M. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Green boxed portions Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 63, 70-89, 92-96, 134, 136-138, 140, 150, 152, 154, 156-158, 160, 163, 164, 168, 175, 176, 187, and 192 (paragraph 531) of Exhibit 3 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s licenses, including payment terms from Intel’s license agreements and the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Intel also seeks to seal the names of the counterparties to these agreements in Exhibit 3 because the names of counterparties to Intel’s agreements are maintained in confidence by Intel, and Intel is under confidentiality obligations to the counterparties not to reveal that information. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 20c. Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal highly confidential licensing information, including payment terms from Intel’s license agreements and the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Intel also seeks to seal the names of the counterparties to these agreements in Exhibit 4 because the names of counterparties to Intel’s agreements are maintained in confidence by Intel, and Intel is under confidentiality obligations to the counterparties not to reveal that information. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 21. Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 6769, 72-78, 228, 230-231, 243-251, 264-270, 284-289, 301-309, 324-331, 346-352, 443-475, 485-487, 489, 494-496, 562-571, 574, 639, 642-647, 649-651, and 653-656 of Exhibit 5 reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 22a. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 472-475, and Exhibits C and D of Exhibit 5 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s financial decisions such as product pricing; Intel’s revenues, profits, and costs; and analysis of the pricing impact of certain product features. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 22b. Furthermore, green-boxed portions of page 575 of Exhibit 5 reveal highly confidential 9 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 10 of 20 information regarding Intel’s licenses, including the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 22c. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exhibit 6 8 9 10 Excerpt of the June 22, 2023 Reply Expert Report of Thomas M. Conte. Green boxed portions United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Exhibit 7 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Excerpt of the Green boxed April 20, 2023 portions Expert Report of Dr. William Henry MangioneSmith Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 60, 63-65, 97, 123, 125, 126, 212-213, 220, 227, 230-232, 294, 297, 298, 300-308, and 336 of Exhibit 6 reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 23a. Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 63, 65 (paragraph 141), 126, 220, 230-231 of Exhibit 6 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s financial decisions such as analysis of the pricing impact of certain product features and analysis of the importance of features, including to revenue and customer demand and resulting marketing strategy. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 23b. Granted, as green-boxed portions of 42-49, 5162, 66, 69-70, 72-74, 78-79, 81-114, 117, 122, 123, 127, 128, 130, 132, 138, 140, 142, 144, 147, 152, 159-183, 185, 187, 190, and Materials Considered at 6-8 of Exhibit 7 reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 24a. Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 59, 61-62, 162-183, and 187 of Exhibit 7 reveal highly confidential information regarding the financial impact to Intel and Intel’s customers of specific Intel features and designs, including 10 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 11 of 20 identifying on a customer specific basis the concerns expressed by that customer and financial implications for that customer. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 24b. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exhibit 8 8 9 10 Excerpt of the Green boxed June 1, 2023 portions Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. William Henry MangioneSmith 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 Exhibit 9 Excerpt of the Green boxed June 22, 2023 portions Reply Report of Dr. William Henry MangioneSmith Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 117120, 122, and Materials Considered at 7-8 of Exhibit 8 reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 25a. Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 116, 119, 122, and 123 of Exhibit 8 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s financial decisions such as Intel’s revenues and costs, sales volume, and analysis of the financial impact to Intel and Intel’s customers of specific Intel features and designs. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 25b. Granted, as green-boxed portions of Exhibit 9 except for the green-boxed portions of Section XIV.B of the Table of Contents found on pages ii-iii (which are addressed separately below) reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 26a. Furthermore, green-boxed portions of Section XIV.B of the Table of Contents found on pages ii-iii of Exhibit 9 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s licenses. In particular, Intel seeks to seal the names of the counterparties to these agreements in Exhibit 9 because the names of counterparties to Intel’s agreements are maintained in confidence by 11 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 12 of 20 Intel, and Intel is under confidentiality obligations to the counterparties not to reveal that information. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 26b. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exhibit 10 8 9 Excerpt of the Green boxed April 20 Expert portions Report of Dean P. Neikirk 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 Exhibit 11 Excerpt of the Green boxed June 22, 2023 portions Reply Report of Dean P. Neikirk Exhibit 13 Excerpt of the Green boxed transcript of the portions deposition of Mark J. Chandler 17 18 19 Granted, as green-boxed portions of Exhibit 10 except for the green-boxed portions of paragraph 320 on page 151 (which are addressed separately below) reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 27a. Furthermore, green-boxed portions of paragraph 320 on page 151 of Exhibit 10 reveal highly confidential information regarding Intel’s costs. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 27b. Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 28. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal highly confidential licensing information, including payment terms from Intel’s license agreements and the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Intel also seeks to seal the names of the counterparties to these agreements in Exhibit 13 because the names of counterparties to Intel’s agreements are maintained in confidence by Intel, and Intel is under confidentiality obligations to the counterparties not to reveal that information. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 29. 12 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 13 of 20 1 Exhibit 16 Intel License Agreement Green boxed portions Exhibit 17 Intel License Agreement Green boxed portions Exhibit 18 Excerpt of the June 1, 2023 Rebuttal Report of Lauren Kindler Excerpt of the June 1, 2023 Rebuttal Report of John Kubiatowicz Green boxed portions 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Exhibit 20 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Green boxed portions Exhibit 22 Excerpt of the Green boxed transcript of the portions deposition of William MangioneSmith Exhibit 23 Excerpt of the Green boxed May 16, 2023 portions Supplemented Expert Report of Dr. William Henry MangioneSmith 14 15 16 17 Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal highly confidential licensing information, including payment terms from Intel’s license agreements and the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 30. Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal highly confidential licensing information, including payment terms from Intel’s license agreements and the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 30. Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal highly confidential licensing information, including regarding the scope of Intel’s license agreements. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 31. Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 32. Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 33. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Granted, as green-boxed portions of pages 4263, 67, 70-71, 73-75, 79-80, 82-115, 118, 123124, 128-129, 131, 133, 139, 141, 143-147, 149, 152-155, 159-183, 185, 188, 190, and Materials Considered at 6-8 of Exhibit 8 reveal details and operation of accused product features and features considered for incorporation into Intel products; the development and testing of accused product features; Intel’s process recipes; and the source code for accused products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 34a. 26 27 28 Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 59, 61-63, 162-183, and 187 of Exhibit 23 reveal highly 13 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 14 of 20 confidential information regarding the financial impact to Intel and Intel’s customers of specific Intel features and designs, including identifying on a customer specific basis the concerns expressed by that customer and financial implications for that customer. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 34b. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exhibit 24 8 Internal Intel Email 9 Green boxed portions Granted, as green-boxed portions reveal highly confidential technical information regarding the design, development, and operation of Intel’s product features. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 35. 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 B. ECF No. 537 The second motion before the court is Intel’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in connection with Intel’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Of Its Omnibus Daubert Motion and Exhibits 1-15, 18, 20, 22, and 23 thereto. ECF No. 537. The motion pertains to information VLSI may want redacted material contained Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion and Exhibits. Id. VLSI writes that the information should be sealed because it includes “highly confidential information concerning VLSI’s damages theories in this case, VLSI’s licensing efforts and history, and specific details regarding the terms of VLSI’s agreements with NXP Semiconductors.” ECF No. 635 ¶ 7. VLSI contends that the analysis is narrowly tailored because “VLSI is only seeking to seal the specific sections that reflect VLSI’s highly-confidential and proprietary damages analyses for the patents-in-suit. These conclusions rely not only on confidential information, but also on proprietary analysis of public information.” Id. ¶ 10. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 14 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 15 of 20 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. The Court’s ruling is 6 summarized below: 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 ECF or Ex. No. Document April 20, 2023 Opening Report of Dr. Ryan Sullivan Blue highlighted portions at pp. ix–x; ¶¶ 21, 23, 25-26, 2829, 170-73, 218, 220– 21, 225, 229, 231–37, 252–256, 263–66, 268, 270, 272, 277, 280, 282, 285–85, 291, 294, 297–98, 308, 312–31, 348, 352, 362, 365, 367, 369, 371–73, 379, 381–83, 384, 398, 404, 410, 412, 430, 436, 442–46, 448, 450, 512 Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions contain highly confidential and proprietary damages analyses and methodologies for the patentsin-suit, public disclosure of which could result in significant competitive and business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and other potential license counterparties. Wen Decl. ¶¶ 9– 15. Ex. 2 to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion Excerpts of the June 22, 2023 Reply Report of Dr. Ryan Sullivan Blue highlighted portions at p. ii; ¶¶ 14, 114, 116, 119–20, 122, 142–45, 172, 179, 182–84, 194, 211–12, 223, 230, 233, 235-236, 238–41, 250, 252, 263–64, 269, 276; Attachments A-10, O-7, O-9 Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions contain highly confidential and proprietary damages analyses and methodologies for the patentsin-suit, public disclosure of which could result in significant competitive and business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and other potential license counterparties. Wen Decl. ¶¶ 9–15. 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 Ruling ECF No. 536 Ex. 1 to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion 13 17 Portion(s) to Seal 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 16 of 20 1 2 3 Ex. 3 to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion Excerpts of the April 20, 2023 Opening Report of Mark Chandler Blue highlighted portions at ¶¶ 213–15, 219–24, 227–28, 230– 44, 247, 254, 256, 271–72, 280–83, 359, 363–65, 387, 395–96, 402, 414, 422, 427, 442–43, 465, 495, 522–23; Appendix A Ex. 4 to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion Excerpts of the June 22, 2023 Reply Report of Mark Chandler Blue highlighted portions at ¶¶ 350, 422, 445–46, 449–50, 454–55, 458, 460, 465, 467; Exhibit 13; Appendix A Ex. 6 to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion Excerpts of the June 22, 2023 Reply Report of Dr. Thomas Conte Blue highlighted portions at ¶¶ 86, 603, 606–10, 630, 632–33 Ex. 7 to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Excerpts of the April 20, 2023 Opening Report of Dr. William MangioneSmith Blue highlighted portions at ¶¶ 74–76, 436, 438, 460 4 5 6 7 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 16 Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions reflect highlyconfidential and proprietary damages analyses of licenses produced in this case, including royalty rates and licensing terms. Wen Decl. ¶ 9. Disclosure of this information could cause significant competitive and business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and other potential license counterparties. See id. ¶¶ 9–15. Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions reflect highlyconfidential and proprietary damages analyses of licenses produced in this case, including royalty rates and licensing terms. Wen Decl. ¶ 9. Disclosure of this information could cause significant competitive and business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and other potential license counterparties. See id. ¶¶ 9–15. Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions reflect highlyconfidential and proprietary technical analyses for two of the patents-in-suit, including proprietary performance testing and analysis of physical accused products. Wen Decl. ¶¶ 16. Disclosure of this information could cause significant competitive and business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and other potential license counterparties. See id. ¶¶ 18–21. Granted as the document pertains to a confidential stipulation to satisfy its obligations under the agreement. See id. ¶ 17. Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 17 of 20 1 2 Ex. 9 to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Excerpts of Dr. Mangione-Smith’s Reply Report re: ’922 Patent Blue highlighted portions at ¶¶ 314–15, 317 Ex. 10 to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Excerpts of Dr. Neikirk’s Opening Expert Report Blue highlighted portions at ¶¶ 314– 315, 317 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Granted, as the blue-highlighted words reflect VLSI’s highlyconfidential and proprietary damages analysis for the ’922 Patent. Wen Decl. ¶¶ 8, 16. Public disclosure of this information could cause significant competitive and business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and other potential license counterparties. See id. ¶¶ 9–14, 18–21. Granted, as the yellowhighlighted portions reflect highly-confidential and proprietary technical damages analyses for the ’672 Patent. Wen Decl. ¶¶ 17. Disclosure of this information could cause significant competitive and business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and other potential license counterparties. See id. ¶¶ 19–22. 15 16 C. 17 The third motion before the court is Intel’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether ECF No. 538 18 Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in connection with Intel’s Memorandum of Points and 19 Authorities In Support Of Its Omnibus Daubert Motion and Exhibits 1-15, 18, 20, 22, and 23 20 thereto. ECF No. 538. The motion pertains to information NXP may want redacted material 21 contained Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion and Exhibits. Id.1 NXP writes that the information should be sealed because “all relate to highly-confidential 22 23 information regarding its past and current intellectual property licensing and monetization 24 practices, activities, capabilities, and efforts. Public disclosure of this information would provide 25 NXP’s competitors with sensitive information regarding NXP’s internal business practices, as well 26 as its relationships with other companies in the semiconductor industry and the patent licensing 27 28 1 The declaration also sought to seal portions of other motions and exhibits, which the Court will address in a forthcoming order. 17 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 18 of 20 1 industry, thus disadvantaging NXP in future business and contract negotiations. It would also 2 adversely affect NXP’s efforts to enter into intellectual property arrangements with other 3 companies.” ECF No. 625 ¶ 7. NXP states it “has narrowly tailored its proposed redactions only 4 to information that maintains in confidence in the regular course of its business.” Id. ¶ 6. 5 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 6 documents. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 8 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 9 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 10 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 11 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is 12 summarized below: ECF or Document Ex. No. 13 Excerpts from the April 20, 2023 Opening Report of Ryan Sullivan, Ph.D. Blue-boxed portions in ¶¶ 170-174, 179. ECF No. 536-5 Ex. 2 to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion Excerpts from the June 22, 2023 Reply Report of Ryan Sullivan, Ph.D. Blue-boxed portions at p. ii; ¶¶ 14, 251-252, 264, 269, 276. ECF No. 536-6 Ex. 3 to Intel’s Excerpts from the April 20, 2023 Report of Mark Blue-boxed portions in ¶¶ 78, 414, 427, 474. 14 ECF No. 536-4 15 Ex. 1 to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion 16 17 Portion(s) to Seal 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18 Ruling Granted, as the document identifies and describes (1) confidential patent agreements entered into between NXP/Freescale and other parties; and (2) confidential intellectual property licensing and monetization practices, activities, capabilities, and efforts by NXP and Freescale. See infra ¶¶ 6–10. Granted, as the document identifies and describes (1) confidential patent agreements entered into between NXP/Freescale and other parties, and (2) confidential intellectual property licensing and monetization practices, activities, capabilities, and efforts by NXP and Freescale. See infra ¶¶ 6-10. Granted, as the document identifies and describes testimony from former Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 19 of 20 Omnibus Daubert Motion 1 2 J. Chandler 3 4 5 D. 6 Since no party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, the 7 ECF No. 539 administrative motion (ECF No. 539) is denied. 8 E. 9 The Court addresses three declarations submitted in connection with ECF No. 540. ECF 10 United States District Court Northern District of California NXP/Freescale employees regarding confidential intellectual property licensing and monetization practices, activities, capabilities, and efforts by NXP and Freescale. See infra ¶¶ 6-7, 9-10. ECF No. 540 No. 608, 630; ECF No. 609; ECF No. 615. 11 Thomas Mavrakakis submitted a declaration and exhibits on behalf of requesting to seal 12 portions of Exhibits 1, 4, and 13 of Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion. ECF No. 608, 630.2 The 13 declaration does not contain a chart, but Mavrakakis attached exhibits showing narrow redactions 14 corresponding to patent purchase agreements. The Mavrakakis declaration details how disclosure 15 of the highlighted information would harm IBM’s business by “providing unfair insight into 16 IBM’s business strategies.” ECF No. 608 at ¶ 5. The Court agrees with IBM that this meets the 17 compelling interest standard and is narrowly tailored. 18 Boaz Brickman submitted a declaration on behalf of IPValue Management, Inc., IPValue 19 Management Group, LLC, and Tahoe Research, Ltd. ECF No. 609. The declaration does not seek 20 additional redactions, but instead states that the parties Brickman represents “rely on Intel to make 21 the appropriate requests for sealing or redacting documents.” ECF No. 609 ¶ 6. As described 22 supra, the Court grants ECF No. 617, so it does not conduct any further analysis with respect to 23 this declaration. 24 Elizabeth J. Kuttilla submitted a declaration on behalf of UNMRI. ECF No. 615. The 25 declaration seeks to seal and keep secret all portions of Exhibit 3 of Intel’s Omnibus Daubert 26 Motion (ECF No. 536-6; ECF No. 541-6), save limited exceptions. ECF No. 615 ¶¶ 10-11. The 27 28 The declaration also sought to seal portions of Exhibits 2 and 7 to Intel’s Daubert Opposition, which the Court will address in a forthcoming order. 19 2 Case 5:17-cv-05671-BLF Document 690 Filed 09/26/23 Page 20 of 20 1 declaration states in a conclusory manner that “[t]here are no less restrictive alternatives to the 2 sealing requested. Id. ¶ 12. Exhibit 3 is a 100+ page expert report and UNMRI does not provide 3 any explanation as to why the entire document needs to be sealed. Therefore, the Court finds that 4 the request is overly broad and not narrowly tailored. 5 F. 6 Since no party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, the United States District Court Northern District of California 7 ECF No. 551 administrative motion (ECF No. 551) is denied. 8 G. 9 Since no party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, the ECF No.552 10 administrative motion (ECF No. 552) is denied. 11 IV. ORDER 12 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. ECF No. 617 is GRANTED. 14 2. ECF No. 537 is GRANTED. 15 3. ECF No. 538 is GRANTED. 16 4. ECF No. 539 is DENIED. 17 5. ECF No. 540 is GRANTED with respect to information sought by IBM, IPValue 18 Management, Inc., IPValue Management Group, LLC, and Tahoe Research, Ltd. to be 19 sealed. The motion is DENIED with respect to information sought by UNMRI to be 20 sealed. 21 6. ECF No. 551 is DENIED. 22 7. ECF No. 552 is DENIED. 23 24 25 26 Dated: September 26, 2023 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 27 28 20
]]>
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.
