VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Background

The court addressed three administrative motions to seal documents filed with the parties’ Daubert motions. Daubert motions ask the court to exclude or limit expert testimony. The underlying expert opinions concerned patent infringement, patent validity, and damages.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are generally presumed open to public inspection. Because the documents were more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, each party had to show “compelling reasons” that outweighed the public’s interest in access. The court rejected treating the motions as subject to the lower “good cause” standard merely because the related motions were labeled non-dispositive.

A sealing request also must be narrowly tailored to cover only genuinely sealable information. The party seeking sealing must make a particularized showing of the specific harm that disclosure would cause rather than relying on broad allegations.

VLSI’s motion, ECF No. 543

The court found VLSI’s request deficient because it was not narrowly tailored. The court also identified two additional issues: VLSI described Exhibit 9 as excerpts from Dr. Sullivan’s reply report, but the attached exhibit appeared to be a transcript of Mr. Sullivan’s deposition; and VLSI appeared to rely on the “good cause” standard rather than showing compelling reasons.

The court held that VLSI’s motion was subject to the compelling-reasons standard because the materials accompanied Daubert proceedings related to the merits. It denied VLSI’s motion without prejudice to filing a renewed motion.

Intel’s first motion, ECF No. 536

Intel sought to seal portions of its brief supporting its omnibus Daubert motion and several exhibits. Intel asserted that the materials contained technical information about the design and operation of accused features, as well as financial and licensing information important to its business.

The court found Intel’s assertions insufficiently particularized because Intel did not identify which documents contained each type of information and appeared to claim that every document contained both types. Intel also failed to follow the court’s standing-order requirement for a chart separately identifying each document, the portions to be sealed, and the reasons for sealing, including supporting declaration citations.

The court denied Intel’s motion without prejudice to refiling.

Intel’s second motion, ECF No. 557

Intel sought to seal highlighted portions of Exhibit 5 to VLSI’s motion to exclude damages opinions. The exhibit was an excerpt from the report of VLSI’s damages expert, Ryan Sullivan.

The court found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions. They contained confidential technical information about the design and operation of Intel’s products, as well as highly confidential financial information, including valuations of accused features, product pricing and cost terms, and pricing analyses. The court also found the request narrowly tailored.

The court granted Intel’s motion. Although VLSI had also sought to seal portions of the same document, VLSI’s request had been denied without prejudice. VLSI was responsible for filing a public redacted version incorporating Intel’s proposed redactions after the court ruled on any renewed motion by VLSI.

Disposition

The court denied VLSI’s motion to seal at ECF No. 543 without prejudice to refiling, with any renewed motion due by September 5, 2023. It denied Intel’s motion at ECF No. 536 without prejudice to refiling, also with a September 5, 2023 deadline. It granted Intel’s motion at ECF No. 557. The court stated that future failures to comply with its standing order may result in denial of a sealing motion with prejudice.