Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC, No. 5:2020cv09341 - Document 319 (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 223 , 256 , 257 , 275 , 276 , 288 Motions to Seal. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/7/2023. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2023)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 10 11 DEMARAY LLC, United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 Re: ECF Nos. 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 223, 256, 257, 275, 276, 288 13 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Applied Materials, Inc.’s (“Applied”) and 14 Defendant Demaray LLC’s (“Demaray”) administrative motions to file under seal documents in 15 connection with briefing on Applied’s motion for summary judgment and claim construction. 16 ECF Nos. 205–10, 223, 256–57, 275–76, 288. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN 17 PART and DENIES IN PART the motions. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 A party seeking to seal judicial records related to a dispositive motion, such as a motion for 20 summary judgment, must demonstrate that “compelling reasons” support its request. Uniloc USA, 21 Inc. v. Apple Inc., 25 F.4th 1018, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). Compelling reasons include preventing the 23 release of trade secrets, id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179), and keeping as private “sources 24 of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon v. Warner 25 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of 26 records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will 27 not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 1 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Courts in this District are split on whether the “compelling reasons” standard also applies 2 to requests to seal materials related to claim construction. Some apply the “compelling reasons” 3 standard because “the court’s construction of the terms of the patent claim is often critical to the 4 outcome of such a suit.” Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., No. 16-CV-00119-HSG, 2017 5 WL 11527607, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2017) (quoting Miotox LLC v. Allergan, Inc., No. 6 214CV08723ODWPJWX, 2016 WL 3176557, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2016)). Others have 7 applied the lower “good cause” standard because claim construction is non-dispositive. Symantec 8 Corp. v. Acronis, Inc., No. 12-CV-05331-JST, 2013 WL 5913756, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2013). 9 However, subsequent to Symantec’s decision to apply the “good cause” standard, the Ninth Circuit 10 clarified that the choice of standard “does not merely depend on whether the motion is technically 11 ‘dispositive.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 12 Rather, the choice “will turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits 13 of a case.” Id. As claim construction is “often critical to the outcome” of a patent suit, 14 Synchronoss, 2017 WL 11527607, at *2 (citation omitted), the Court will apply the “compelling 15 reasons” standard. 16 II. MOTIONS TO SEAL MATERIAL RELATED TO APPLIED’S MOTION FOR 17 SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 205–10) 18 The Court finds that much of the information sought to be sealed consists of confidential 19 product information or constitutes sensitive information about customer relationships. There are 20 compelling reasons to seal such information because its public release may harm the competitive 21 standing of the parties and third parties who provided the information. 22 However, three categories of information sought to be sealed do not meet the high bar of 23 “compelling reasons.” First, the parties and non-parties who initially designated as confidential 24 certain information in the Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts as well as Exhibits 12, 15, 16, 25, 25 26, 31, and 39 to Applied’s motion for summary judgment do not seek to maintain that 26 information under seal. Second, Applied proposes certain redactions to its motion for summary 27 judgment and Exhibit 31 to that motion—namely, portions of those documents describing the 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 2 1 extent of discovery taken to date, and stale information regarding prior exposure to the patents-in- 2 suit—solely because that information “may be interpreted to accuse Applied of wrongdoing that is 3 not only untrue, but also may mislead the public . . . to believe that Applied has committed the 4 alleged wrongdoing.” Pl.’s Admin. Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 210, at 1, 6. In other words, Applied 5 seeks to seal this information to avoid embarrassment, a justification that does not clear the bar for 6 sealing. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Finally, Applied seeks to apply redactions to Exhibit 7 39 to its motion for summary judgment, a transcript of proceedings in open court. Such 8 proceedings are public, so sealing is not warranted. United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence Order 10 Motion (ECF No.) 11 210 Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 210-1 DENIED as to 2:9, 15:5, 23:25– 26 because the proposed redactions cover legal arguments and do not include proprietary details of Applied’s chambers. 12 Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 2:9; 2:11– 12; 2:14–15; 6:9; 6:11–7:1; 7:7–8; 7:10– 15; 7:17–28; 8:8–10; 8:13; 8:24–26; 9:12–13; 9:22–28; 10:4–7; 13:3–8; 13:12–15; 13:23–25; 14:5–8; 14:12; 14:17–20; 15:5–11; 15:14–17; 15:20– 22; 16:5; 16:7–17:1; 17:10; 17:12–15; 17:23–25; 18:1–2; 18:15–16; 18:22; 19:5–12; 19:14–15; 19:17–20; 19:22– 23; 19:25–28; 20:2–3; 20:12–14; 20:23– 25; 21:2–3; 23:19–21; 23:25–26, Fns. 1, 5, 11–12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 DENIED as to 13:3–8, 13:12–13, 14:17–18 because there are no compelling reasons to seal general descriptions of discovery produced during litigation. 19 20 21 22 Otherwise GRANTED. 23 24 25 26 207 Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 231-1 Proposed redactions covering Advanced Energy Industries, Inc’s (“AEI”) 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 3 GRANTED. 1 Motion (ECF No.) 2 210 Order Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. ECF No. 231-1 DENIED as to ¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 18, and the portion of ¶ 22 citing to Exhibit 12 because AEI does not seek to seal this material. Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: ¶¶ 12–15, 17–22 5 6 7 Supporting Evidence confidential information at: Pages 7–10, 15, 16–22. 3 4 Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed 207 8 Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts Proposed redactions covering AEI’s confidential information at: ¶¶ 14–18, 22 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Otherwise GRANTED, including the portion of ¶ 22 citing to Exhibit 11. 12 13 14 15 210 16 17 210 20 21 23 25 GRANTED. Exhibit 2 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (10/28/2022 Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657 excerpt) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 1, 4, 20–23 22 24 ECF No. 210-1 Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: Pages 1, 4, 23–25, 27–31. 18 19 Exhibit 1 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (10/28/2022 Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276 excerpt) 207 Exhibit 11 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (12/15/2022 Josh Pankratz deposition transcript excerpt) 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 4 1 2 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence Order 207 Exhibit 12 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0000431) N/A 210 Exhibit 13 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (2/9/2021 Keith Miller deposition transcript excerpt) ECF No. 210-1 DENIED because AEI does not seek to seal this material. GRANTED. ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. 3 4 5 6 Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 97:1–2; 97:3–9; 97:11–14; 97:16; 97:18–21; 97:23–25; 101:1–8; 101:10–14; 101:16; 101:18–20; 101:22–102:6; 102:8–12; 102:14–16; 102:18–22; 102:24–103:21; 103:23–25; 138:6; 140:18–24; 141:8– 12; 141:15–16; 141:22–142:14; 148:2– 5; 148:7–16; 148:18; 148:20–24; 201:1– 7; 201:10–16; 201:18–20; 201:22–25; 202:3–22; 203:5–6; 203:16–204:6; 204:9–20; 204:23–25 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 207 15 16 Proposed redactions covering AEI’s confidential information at: 138:13–15; 138:18–140:17; 140:25–141:7. 17 18 19 207 Exhibit 14 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0002175) ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. 207 Exhibit 15 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AE_000714) N/A DENIED because AEI does not seek to seal this material. 210 Exhibit 16 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (10/7/2022 AMAT 2nd Suppl. Responses to Demaray 1st ROGs (1-10)) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit 13 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (2/9/2021 Keith Miller deposition transcript excerpt) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 8:21–25; 10:14–27; 11:12–15; 11:18-23; 12:1Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 5 1 Motion (ECF No.) 2 4 5 6 7 207 9 10 Order Exhibit 16 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (10/7/2022 AMAT 2nd Suppl. Responses to Demaray 1st ROGs (1-10)) N/A DENIED because AEI does not seek to seal this material. ECF No. 238-1 GRANTED. Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 17:1–6. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Supporting Evidence 14:6, 14:9-17:1; 17:4-18:1; 18:3-20; 18:22-24; 19:1-20:18; 20:20-28; 21:6-9; 21:12-28:5; 28:7-8; 28:10-12; 28:18-22; 29:1-30:18; 30:20-21; 30:24-25; 31:2-3; 31:8-32:22; 32:25-26; 33:6-34:7; 34:9; 34:11-12; 34:17-35:2; 35:4-7; 35:10-11; 35:14; 35:16-36:22; 36:24-37:16; 37:2038:12; 38:14-15; 38:17-19; 38:21-22; 38:27-39:3; 39:6-41:26; 42:1, fns. 1–6 3 8 Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed 12 13 208 14 15 Exhibit 16 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (10/7/2022 AMAT 2nd Suppl. Responses to Demaray 1st ROGs (1-10)) Proposed redactions covering Comet Technologies USA Inc.’s confidential information at: 17:1–15–18:1; 18:3–20. 16 17 18 210 Exhibit 17 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0013168) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 210 Exhibit 18 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0015437) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 210 Exhibit 19 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0012054) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 210 Exhibit 20 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0011890) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 6 1 2 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence Order 210 Exhibit 21 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0011713) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 210 Exhibit 22 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0015383) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 210 Exhibit 23 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0015240) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 210 Exhibit 24 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0015236) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 207 Exhibit 25 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0000187) N/A DENIED because AEI does not seek to seal this material. 207 Exhibit 26 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_NDCA_00003951) N/A DENIED because AEI does not seek to seal this material. 209 Exhibit 27 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (1/5/2023 William Krupke deposition transcript excerpt) ECF No. 236 GRANTED. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Proposed redactions covering Demaray’s confidential material at: 86:18; 86:22–23; 87:23–24; 88:5–6. 19 20 209 Exhibit 28 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (3/20/2023– 3/21/2023 Ernest Demaray rough deposition transcript excerpt) ECF No. 236 GRANTED. 210 Exhibit 29 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (1/4/2023 Demaray 2nd Am. Final Infringement Contentions [Samsung]) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 7 1 Motion (ECF No.) 2 Supporting Evidence Order ECF No. 234-1 GRANTED. ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. ECF No. 235-1 GRANTED. ECF No. 210-1 DENIED as to 12:16–18 because there are no compelling reasons to seal stale information. Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: Ex. A at 5; Ex. B at 4. 3 4 5 Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed 206 6 Exhibit 29 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (1/4/2023 Demaray 2nd Am. Final Infringement Contentions [Samsung]) 7 Proposed redactions covering Samsung’s confidential information at: Exhibit A, Pages 4–5, and Exhibit B, Page 4 8 9 10 210 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: Ex. A at 5; Ex. B at 4. 13 14 15 205 16 17 18 Exhibit 30 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (2/9/2023 Demaray's Third Am. Final Infringement Contentions [Intel]) Proposed redactions covering Intel’s confidential information at: Exhibit A, Page 5, and Exhibit B, Page 4 19 20 Exhibit 30 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (2/9/2023 Demaray's Third Am. Final Infringement Contentions [Intel]) 210 21 22 23 Exhibit 31 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (10/28/2022 Demaray's Infringement Contentions [Applied]) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 3:26–27, 4:5, 7:27, 8:17, 8:26–27; 9:21–22; 10:17–18; 12:16–18; 13:12–13; 13:15– 18; 13:20–22. 24 25 Otherwise GRANTED. 26 27 28 209 Exhibit 31 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (10/28/2022 N/A Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 8 DENIED because Demaray does not 1 Motion (ECF No.) 2 Supporting Evidence 4 Order seek to seal this material. Demaray's Infringement Contentions [Applied]) 3 Proposed redactions covering Demaray’s confidential information at: Page 12 5 6 Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed 210 Exhibit 33 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0002517) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 210 Exhibit 34 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (2/23/2023 Miller Declaration ISO Motion for Summary Judgment) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 1:15-16, 1:18–28; 2:1–8; 2:15–3:3 13 14 15 207 16 Exhibit 34 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (2/23/2023 Miller Declaration ISO Motion for Summary Judgment) 17 Proposed redactions covering AEI’s confidential information at: 2:2; 2:6–7; 2:9–15. 18 19 20 210 21 Exhibit 35 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0004787) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: ¶¶ 3–12 22 23 24 25 26 210 Exhibit 36 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0013168) Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: ¶¶ 3–8 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 9 1 2 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence Order 210 Exhibit 39 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (8/9/2022 D. Colo. Hearing Transcript Demaray v. Advanced Energy) ECF No. 210-1 DENIED because the statements were made in open court. N/A DENIED because the statements were made in open court and AEI does not seek to seal this material. 3 4 5 Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 8:1–3 6 7 207 8 9 Proposed redactions covering AEI’s confidential information at: 8:19–20; 8:24; 9:15–16; 18:15–17; 21:14–17. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 207 Exhibit 40 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0022222) ECF No. 231-1 GRANTED. 210 Exhibit 41 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (AMATDEM_0025315) ECF No. 210-1 GRANTED. 13 14 Exhibit 39 to Applied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (8/9/2022 D. Colo. Hearing Transcript Demaray v. Advanced Energy) 15 16 17 III. MOTIONS TO SEAL MATERIAL RELATED TO DEMARAY’S OPPOSITION TO 18 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 256–57) 19 The Court again finds that much of the information sought to be sealed consists of 20 confidential product information and that there are compelling reasons to seal such information 21 because public release of such information may harm the competitive standing of the parties and 22 third parties who provided the information. Nonetheless, the sealing of several documents is not 23 justified at this point because, inter alia, the proposed sealing is not narrowly tailored, the 24 proposed sealing covers general scientific principles rather than proprietary information, or the 25 proposed sealing discusses discovery efforts without revealing proprietary information. 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 10 1 2 3 4 5 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence Order 256 Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 267-1 DENIED as to 1:16–18, 8 n.7, 17:20–21, 18:5, 18:7–9, 23:17 because the proposed redactions cover attorney argument, not proprietary details of Applied’s chambers. Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information at: 1–3, 5, 8– 12, 13, 16–21, 23–24 6 7 8 DENIED as to 8:21–25, 9:1–10:2, 20:17–22, 20:24– 26 because it appears that these lines discuss the general science of PVD chambers and the proposed redactions are not narrowly tailored to Applied’s proprietary technology. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DENIED as to 2:9, 2:13, 13:26– 27, 17:12–13, 17:23–24, 20:10– 14, 23:13, 23:15– 16, 23:23–24, 23:26, 24:2–24 because there are no compelling reasons to seal general descriptions of discovery efforts and the proposed 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 11 1 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence 2 redactions are not narrowly tailored to Applied’s proprietary technology. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Otherwise GRANTED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 257 12 Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 266-1 Proposed redactions covering AEI’s confidential information at: 10–11, 15– 17, 23 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 Otherwise GRANTED. 23 256 25 Ex. 6 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (202210-07 AMAT Responses to Demaray 1st RFIs (1-2)) ECF No. 267-1 26 27 28 DENIED as to the proposed redactions on page 17 because descriptions of preparation for a deposition are not proprietary information satisfying the “compelling reasons” standard. DENIED as to 23:8–9, 23:11 because there are no compelling reasons to seal general descriptions of discovery efforts. 18 24 Order Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 12 DENIED because sealing of the entire document is not narrowly tailored to protect Applied’s proprietary information. Applied may 1 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence 2 renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 3 4 5 6 7 256 Ex. 7 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (2/24/2023 email between counsel) ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because sealing of the entire document is not narrowly tailored to protect Applied’s proprietary information. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 256 Ex. 10 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (10/28/2022 Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276 excerpt) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 11 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM-SC_000004) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 12 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0028695) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 13 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0000431) ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because this is AEI’s document, not Applied’s document, and AEI does not seek to seal this document. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Order 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 13 1 2 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence Order 257 Ex. 13 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0000431) N/A DENIED because AEI does not seek to seal this document. 256 Ex. 14 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0002175) ECF No. 267-1 This is an AEI document, so Applied is not entitled to seek sealing of the document. However, AEI also sought sealing, and that request is GRANTED. 257 Ex. 14 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0002175) ECF No. 266-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 15 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0002218) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 16 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0011751) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 17 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0022194) ECF No. 267-1 This is an AEI document, so Applied is not entitled to seek sealing of the document. However, AEI also sought sealing, and that request is GRANTED. 257 Ex. 17 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0022194) ECF No. 266-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 18 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0022222) ECF No. 267-1 This is an AEI document, so Applied is not entitled to seek sealing of the 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 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 14 1 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence 2 document. However, AEI also sought sealing, and that request is GRANTED. 3 4 5 6 257 Ex. 18 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0022222) ECF No. 266-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 19 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0022763) ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because this document appears to contain a third party’s confidential information, not Applied’s confidential information, and that third party has not sought sealing. 256 Ex. 20 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0028604) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 21 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0031685) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 22 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0071308) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 23 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_NDCA_00008102) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 24 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_NDCA_00009649) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. Ex. 25 to Demaray’s Opposition to ECF No. 267-1 Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0015240) Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 15 GRANTED. 7 8 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Order 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 256 27 28 1 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence Order 256 Ex. 26 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (AMAT-DEM_0022697) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 28 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (3/16/2023 John Forster deposition transcript excerpt) ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because the sealing request is not narrowly tailored, and the substantive deposition testimony appears to discuss the general science of PVD chambers rather than Applied’s proprietary technology. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 257 Ex. 29 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ((12/15/2022 Josh Pankratz deposition transcript excerpt) ECF No. 266-1 DENIED because the sealing request is not narrowly tailored. AEI may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 256 Ex. 30 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (2/9/2021 Keith Miller deposition transcript excerpt) ECF No. 267-1 GRANTED. 256 Ex. 31 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (3/23/2023 Keith Miller deposition ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because the sealing request is not narrowly tailored. Applied 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 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 16 1 Motion (ECF No.) 2 Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. transcript excerpt) 3 4 5 6 7 256 Ex. 32 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (4/24/2023 Giapis Declaration) ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because the sealing request is not narrowly tailored. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 256 Ex. 35 to Demaray’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (4/11/2023 Ken Smyth deposition excerpt) ECF No. 267-1 DENIED because the sealing request is not narrowly tailored, and the substantive deposition testimony appears to discuss the general science of PVD chambers rather than Applied’s proprietary technology. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 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 Order Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 17 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 IV. MOTIONS TO SEAL MATERIALS RELATED TO APPLIED’S REPLY IN 2 SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 275–76) 3 While much of Applied’s Reply is sealable, attorney argument characterizing the claims at 4 issue and the prior art are not. Likewise, as noted above, general descriptions of discovery efforts 5 that do not reveal proprietary information are not sealable. Finally, excerpts from the transcript of 6 the Markman hearing in this case are not sealable because the hearing was open to the public, and 7 neither party requested redactions of the transcript within five days of the filing of the transcript. 8 See ECF No. 265. 9 Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence Order 10 Motion (ECF No.) 11 275 Applied’s Reply ISO Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 275-1 DENIED as to Table of Contents IV.A, 2:9–10, 2:26, 3:13–14, 3:22–24, 4:2–3, 5:13–14, 5:16–17, 6:6–7, 6:27–28, 7:2, 7:5–6, Page 7 Subheading IV.A, 7:16–17, 8:2–3, 8:9–10, 9:18, 11:14–15, 11:14– 15, 11:21, 12:4–5, 12:17, 15:17, 15:26–27 because the proposed redactions cover attorney argument and do not include proprietary details of Applied’s chambers. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information redacted at: Table of Contents; 1:2–4; 1:6–7; 1:9– 12; 1:15–16; 1:24; 1:26; 2:9–10; 2:13– 15; 2:21–26; 3:1; 3:3–4; 3:11–14; 3:21– 26; 4:2–3; 5:13–18; 6:6–7; 6:23–28; 7:2–8; 7:10–13; 7:15–17; 7:19–28; 8:1– 28; 9:1–7; 9:12–27; 10:1–28; 11:1–17; 11:19; 11:21–28; 12:1; 12:3–5; 12:8–12; 12:17–18; 13:14; 13:22–24; 14:5; 14:8– 9; 15:1–4; 15:6; 15:8–18; 15:24–27; fn.3. 20 21 22 DENIED as to 12:17, 13:22–24, 14:5, 14:8–9 because the proposed redactions cover attorney argument regarding prior art, not proprietary details of 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 18 1 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence 2 Order Applied’s chambers. 3 DENIED as to 8:16, 11:9–10, 11:16, 15:3–4, 15:6, 15:12–14 15:15 because there are no compelling reasons to seal general descriptions of discovery taken or requested. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Otherwise GRANTED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 276 Applied’s Reply ISO Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 283-1 GRANTED. ECF No. 275-1 DENIED because the Markman hearing was open to the public, and the parties did not request redaction of the hearing transcript within five days of the filing of the transcript. 13 Proposed redactions covering AEI’s confidential information redacted at: 2:11–12, 3:5–11. 14 15 16 275 17 Exhibit 1 to Reply ISO Motion for Summary Judgment (excerpts of Markman Hearing Transcript, dated April 26, 2023) 18 19 20 21 22 V. MOTION TO SEAL MATERIAL RELATED TO DEMARAY’S SUR-REPLY IN 23 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 288) 24 The Court finds that sealing is warranted for Demaray’s sur-reply, except to the extent that 25 the proposed redactions cover pure attorney argument. However, the requests to seal the entirety 26 of Exhibits 42 and 43 are not narrowly tailored and therefore denied. 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 19 1 2 Motion (ECF No.) Document or Portion of Documents Sought to be Sealed Supporting Evidence Order 288 Demaray’s Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 300-1 DENIED as to 5:4–5, 7:17 because the proposed redactions cover legal arguments and do not include proprietary details of Applied’s chambers. 3 4 Proposed redactions covering Applied’s confidential information redacted at: 1:2–3, 1:5–6, 1:17–22, 2:1, 2:6–7, 2:26– 27, 3:26–28, 4:1–11, 4:15–17, 4:19–28, 5:1–5, 5:7–8, 7:14–17, 7:19–24. 5 6 7 Otherwise GRANTED. 8 9 288 Exhibit 42 to Demaray’s Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Proposed Amended Infringement Contentions) ECF No. 300-1 DENIED because sealing of the entire document is not narrowly tailored to protect Applied’s proprietary information. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 288 Exhibit 43 to Demaray’s Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Proposed Amended Infringement Contentions) ECF No. 300-1 DENIED because sealing of the entire document is not narrowly tailored to protect Applied’s proprietary information. Applied may renew its request for sealing if it identifies specific proprietary information and proposes narrowly tailored redactions. 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 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 20 1 MOTION TO SEAL MATERIAL RELATED TO APPLIED’S RESPONSIVE 2 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF (ECF NO. 223) 3 Applied seeks to redact two excerpts of claim charts attached to its responsive claim 4 construction brief as Exhibits 13 and 14. The Court finds that the proposed redactions are 5 narrowly tailored to proprietary technical details about Applied’s chambers and that compelling 6 reasons exist for sealing. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Applied’s motion. 7 VII. 8 United States District Court Northern District of California VI. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 9 parties’ motions to seal, without prejudice. Any party or non-party wishing to renew any sealing 10 request shall file a single motion addressing all such documents discussed in this Order for which 11 it seeks to renew its request. Such motions must be filed by July 14, 2023. 12 If no such motions are filed by that deadline, the parties shall file public versions of 13 documents for which the Court denied sealing by July 19, 2023. They shall be filed so that all 14 documents related to a brief are attached to a single docket entry. For example, there shall be a 15 single docket entry containing the motion for summary judgment and supporting exhibits, and a 16 separate docket entry for the opposition and supporting exhibits. 17 If any party or non-party files a motion renewing its sealing requests, the parties shall wait 18 to file public versions of documents until all sealing requests regarding the documents discussed in 19 this Order are finally resolved. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 Dated: July 7, 2023 __________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09341-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEN. IN PART MOTS. TO SEAL 21

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.