VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Background

Intel filed four administrative motions concerning Exhibit 9 to its amended answer. Two motions sought permission to file the exhibit under seal, and two asked the court to consider whether material designated by another party should remain sealed. The motions concerned a patent licensing agreement between Intel and Finjan LLC. Intel sought to seal portions that had not previously been made public in separate litigation. Finjan submitted declarations supporting the sealing requests.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the material concerned the underlying case, the parties had to show compelling reasons for sealing it. Such reasons can include protecting trade secrets and business information whose disclosure could harm a party’s competitive position. The parties also had to satisfy the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 79-5, including explaining the interests supporting sealing, the injury that could result from disclosure, and why a less restrictive alternative would not suffice.

Court’s analysis

The portions at issue contained nonpublic information about the types of patents licensed and the agreement’s financial terms. Intel and Finjan asserted that public disclosure could negatively affect their ability to negotiate future licenses and settlements. The court found these requests compelling because the agreement contained sensitive financial and business information. It concluded that Intel and Finjan had met their burden to show that the nonpublic portions could be filed under seal.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Intel’s administrative motions. The court directed Intel to file a redacted copy of the agreement publicly on or before December 29, 2021.