Carnegie Mellon University v. LSI Corporation
- James Donato
- 3:18-cv-04571
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Carnegie Mellon University v. LSI Corporation, Judge Donato granted motions to seal exhibits containing proprietary information, pricing strategies, and manufacturing costs.
Carnegie Mellon University, LSI Corporation and the other defendants, and third party Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.; the order governed public access to selected exhibits containing alleged proprietary business information.
What happened
Carnegie Mellon University and LSI Corporation, along with other parties, asked the court to seal selected exhibits connected to claim-construction and partial-summary-judgment proceedings. Marvell Semiconductor also asked to seal two exhibits.
The parties said the exhibits contained proprietary technical information, pricing strategies, and manufacturing costs. They argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm.
Judge Donato found that the parties had shown specific reasons for sealing that outweighed the public’s general interest in access, and granted the motions. The order did not decide the underlying claim-construction or summary-judgment issues.
The detailed version
- Carnegie Mellon University v. LSI Corporation · No. 3:18-cv-04571
- James Donato
- Sept. 29, 2021
Background
The court had directed the parties to file motions addressing whether selected exhibits should be kept from public view. The parties filed a joint consolidated motion concerning exhibits related to claim construction and partial summary-judgment motions. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., a third party, filed a motion concerning two exhibits. The plaintiffs and defendants also filed motions concerning exhibits associated with LSI Corporation’s summary-judgment motion, and the defendants filed a motion concerning an exhibit associated with their partial-summary-judgment motion.
Ruling
The court applied the standard requiring specific and compelling reasons for restricting public access to court records. It found that, for each document, the parties had identified facts showing that the requested redactions and sealing concerned proprietary technical information, pricing strategies, or manufacturing costs. The court concluded that disclosure could cause competitive harm and that these reasons outweighed the general policies favoring public access.
The court granted the motions to seal. This order addressed only the sealing requests; it did not resolve the underlying claim-construction or summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.