VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 5:2017cv05671 - Document 726 (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED ( 565 , 570 ); GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED ( 566 ); DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED ( 561 , 562 , 567 , 568 , 569 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/16/2023. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2023)

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 v. 10 INTEL CORPORATION, 11 Defendant. ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED [Re: ECF Nos. 561, 562, 565, 566, 567, 12 568, 569, 570] 13 14 15 16 Before the Court are Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Administrative Motions regarding its 17 Opposition to VLSI's Daubert Motion to Exclude Technical Opinions of Intel's Experts (ECF No. 18 560) (“Technical Opposition”) and its Opposition to VLSI's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions 19 of Intel's Experts (ECF No. 564) (“Damages Opposition”): 20 1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 21 Sealed in Connection with Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC's 22 Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Intel's Experts and Exhibits 1-5 Thereto. ECF 23 No. 561. 24 2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 25 Sealed in Connection with Exhibit 5 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology 26 LLC's Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Intel's Experts. ECF No. 562. 27 28 3. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC's 1 Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts and Exhibits 3-5 and 10 2 Thereto. ECF No. 565. 4. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 3 4 Sealed in Connection with Exhibits 2 and 7 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI 5 Technology LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts. ECF No. 6 566. 5. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 7 8 Sealed in Connection with Exhibit 2 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology 9 LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts. ECF No. 567. 6. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be United States District Court Northern District of California 10 11 Sealed in Connection with Exhibit 9 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology 12 LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts. ECF No. 568. 7. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 13 14 Sealed in Connection with Exhibits 2, 7, and 12 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI 15 Technology LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts. ECF No. 16 569. 8. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be 17 18 Sealed in Connection with Exhibits 2, 7, 9, and 12 of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff 19 VLSI Technology LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts. 20 ECF No. 570. For the reasons described below, the Administrative Motions are GRANTED IN PART 21 22 23 and DENIED IN PART. I. BACKGROUND 24 Intel filed its Technical Opposition (ECF No. 560) and Damages Opposition (ECF No. 25 564) on August 15, 2023. Intel filed two Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 26 Party's Material Should Be Sealed in connection with the Technical Opposition (ECF Nos. 561, 27 562) and six in connection with the Damages Opposition (ECF Nos. 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 28 570). On September 1, 2023, Intel notified the Court that it had served non-parties corresponding 2 1 to ECF Nos. 566, 567, 568. ECF No. 610. Plaintiff and several non-parties provided declarations regarding Intel’s Administrative 2 3 Motions: 1. Charlotte Wen submitted a Corrected Declaration on behalf of VLSI in support of 4 5 ECF Nos. 565, 567, and 568 which appears to correct ECF Nos. 631 and 633, two 6 declarations previously submitted by Ms. Wen. ECF No. 635 2. Thomas Mavrakakis submitted a Declaration and Exhibits on behalf of International United States District Court Northern District of California 7 8 Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) in support of ECF No. 566. ECF Nos. 608, 9 630. 10 3. Charlotte Wen submitted a Declaration on behalf of NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc., 11 NXP Semiconductors B.V. and Freescale Semiconductor Inc. (collectively “NXP”) in 12 support of ECF No. 570. ECF No. 621. 13 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 15 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 16 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 17 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 18 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 19 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 20 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 21 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 22 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 23 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 24 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 25 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 26 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 27 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 28 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 3 1 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 2 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 3 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 4 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 5 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 6 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 7 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 III. DISCUSSION The documents at issue in Intel’s motions to seal are associated with its Daubert motions. United States District Court Northern District of California 9 10 These opinions concern infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue in the case, available 11 damages for the alleged infringement, and efforts to strike or exclude expert opinions. These 12 issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore the parties must 13 provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 14 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 15 1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). 16 A. No party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, so the administrative 17 18 19 motion (ECF No. 561) is DENIED. B. 22 23 ECF No. 562 No party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, so the administrative 20 21 ECF No. 561 motion (ECF No. 562) is DENIED. C. ECF No. 565 VLSI seeks to seal selected portions of Intel’s Damages Opposition (ECF No. 564) and 24 several of the exhibits. VLSI writes that the information should be sealed because it includes 25 “highly confidential information concerning VLSI’s damages theories in this case, VLSI’s 26 licensing efforts and history, and specific details regarding the terms of VLSI’s agreements with 27 NXP Semiconductors.” ECF No. 635 ¶ 7. VLSI contends that the analysis is narrowly tailored 28 because “VLSI is only seeking to seal the specific sections that reflect VLSI’s highly-confidential 4 1 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 9 summarized below: ECF or Document Exhibit No. Ex. 2 to Excerpts of the Intel’s Rebuttal Report Opposition of Dr. Fay to VLSI’s Damages Daubert 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California and proprietary damages analyses for the patents-in-suit..” Id. ¶ 10. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ex. 7 to Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Damages Daubert 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ex. 9 to Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Damages Daubert Portion(s) to Seal Blue highlighted portions at p. iv; ¶¶ 611, 830, 835–836, 846-848, 856, 877–879, 884– 885, 887–889 Ruling Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions reflect discussion of and references to highly confidential and proprietary technical analyses of the patents-in-suit, including proprietary performance testing and analysis of physical accused products, as well as analyses of confidential licenses produced in this case. Wen Decl. ¶¶ 9, 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. ¶¶ 8– 15, 19–22. Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions Excerpts of the Blue highlighted reflect discussion of and references to highlyRebuttal Report portions at ¶ 16 confidential and proprietary damages analyses of Ms. Kindler 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. ¶¶ 8–15. Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions Excerpts of the Blue highlighted contain discussions of and references to highly Rebuttal Report portions at ¶¶ confidential and proprietary damages analyses of Dr. Perryman 20, 80, 83, 85, and methodologies for the patents-in-suit, 88, 90, 94, 97- public disclosure of which could result in 98, 102–03, significant competitive and business harms to 107, 112-15, VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and 118, 120, 122, other potential license counterparties. Wen 124, 128–32, Decl. ¶¶ 8– 15. 134, 179, 189– 92, 194 5 D. 1 The following non-parties were served (ECF No. 610), but did not file declarations in 2 3 support of this administrative motion: Allied Security Trust I (AST), Verayo, Inc., P&IB Co., 4 Ltd., Contour Semiconductor, Inc., Luminescent Technologies, Inc., Foundation for Advancement 5 of International Science (FAIS), Casio Computer Co. Ltd. The administrative motion (ECF No. 6 566) is DENIED with respect to those non-parties. Thomas Mavrakakis submitted a declaration and exhibits on behalf of IBM requesting to 7 United States District Court Northern District of California ECF No. 566 8 seal portions of Exhibits 2 and 7 of Intel’s Damages Opposition. ECF No. 608 ¶ 3. The 9 declaration does not contain a chart, but Mavrakakis attached exhibits showing narrow redactions 10 corresponding to patent purchase agreements. ECF No. 630. The Mavrakakis Declaration details 11 how disclosure of the highlighted information would harm IBM’s business by “providing unfair 12 insight into IBM’s business strategies.” ECF No. 608 at ¶ 5. The Court agrees with IBM that this 13 meets the compelling interest standard and is narrowly tailored. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, 14 Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding 15 “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); 16 Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. 17 Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form 18 of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). 19 E. No party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, so the administrative 20 21 motion (ECF No. 567) is DENIED. 22 F. ECF No. 568 No party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, so the administrative 23 24 ECF No. 567 motion (ECF No. 568) is DENIED. 25 G. ECF No. 569 No party filed declarations in support of this administrative motion, so the administrative 26 27 motion (ECF No. 569) is DENIED. 28 \\ 6 1 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 H. ECF No. 570 NXP seeks to seal selected portions of Intel’s Damages Opposition (ECF No. 564) and 3 several of the exhibits. VLSI writes that the information should be sealed because it includes 4 “confidential materials relating to its intellectual property licensing and monetization department, 5 including its practices, activities, and patent agreements entered into between NXP/Freescale and 6 other parties.” ECF No. 621 ¶ 5. VLSI contends that the analysis is narrowly tailored because “its 7 proposed redactions only to information that maintains in confidence in the regular course of its 8 business.” Id. ¶ 6. 9 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 10 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 11 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 12 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 13 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 14 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 15 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is 16 summarized below: 17 ECF or Exhibit No. Ex. 2 to Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions Document Ex. 7 to Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions Excerpts from the June 1, 2023 Rebuttal Expert Report of Lauren Kindler 18 19 20 21 22 Portion(s) to Seal Excerpts from Blue-boxed the June 1, portions in p. iv; 2023 Rebuttal ¶¶ 570-571, Expert Report 574-575, 611of Patrick Fay 615, 618, 622, 625, 628. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ruling Granted, as the document identifies and describes (1) confidential patent agreements entered into between NXP/Freescale and other parties, (2) confidential intellectual property licensing and monetization practices, activities, capabilities, and efforts by NXP and Freescale, and (3) confidential testimony from current and former employees of NXP and Freescale regarding its intellectual property practices. Granted, as the document identifies and Blue-boxed describes (1) confidential patent agreements and portions in ¶¶ negotiations entered into between NXP 15-18, 88-89, 91-92, 129, 130, /Freescale and other parties, (2) confidential 133, 137- 140, intellectual property licensing and monetization practices, activities, capabilities, and efforts by 142-143, 146NXP and Freescale, and (3) 152, 154-155, confidential testimony from current and former 157-160, 234employees of NXP and Freescale regarding its 236, 239, 240. intellectual property practices. 7 1 2 3 4 5 Ex. 9 to Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions Excerpts from the June 1, 2023 Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. M. Ray Perryman Blue-boxed portions in ¶¶ 60, 68-69, 107, 174, 189-195, 197. Granted, as the document identifies and describes (1) confidential patent agreements and negotiations entered into between NXP/Freescale and other parties, (2) confidential intellectual property licensing and monetization practices, activities, capabilities, and efforts by NXP and Freescale, (3) confidential testimony from current and former employees of NXP and Freescale regarding its intellectual property practices, and (4) confidential details regarding the terms of the Patent Purchase and Cooperation Agreement between NXP and VLSI. Ex. 12 to Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions Appendix E to the June 1, 2023 Rebuttal Expert Report of Lauren Kindler Blue-boxed portions in Appendices E1, E-2, and E11. Granted, as the document identifies and describes confidential patent agreements and negotiations entered into between NXP/Freescale and other parties. 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 IV. ORDER 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. ECF No. 561 is DENIED. 16 2. ECF No. 562 is DENIED. 17 3. ECF No. 565 is GRANTED. 18 4. ECF No. 566 GRANTED with respect to IBM; it is otherwise DENIED. 19 5. ECF No. 567 is DENIED. 20 6. ECF No. 568 is DENIED. 21 7. ECF No. 569 is DENIED. 22 8. ECF No. 570 is GRANTED. 23 24 25 26 Dated: October 16, 2023 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 27 28 8

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.