Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 7, 2023

VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:17-cv-05671
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
7
Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In VLSI Technology v. Intel, Judge Freeman granted Intel’s motions to seal confidential technical and licensing information.

Who this affects

Intel Corporation’s selected technical, business, and licensing information will remain under seal in the specified filings and exhibits; the order also concerns public access to those court records.

What happened

VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation involved Intel’s requests to keep selected portions of its summary-judgment motion, expert materials, deposition transcripts, and related filings from public view.

The court found compelling reasons to protect confidential information about Intel’s product designs, manufacturing processes, technical operations, and licensing agreements. It also found that the requests were narrowly tailored.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted both of Intel’s administrative motions to seal, filed at ECF Nos. 579 and 591.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation · No. 5:17-cv-05671
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Sept. 7, 2023

Background

Intel filed two administrative motions asking the court to seal selected portions of filings connected to its summary-judgment motion and its reply supporting an expert-evidence motion under the Daubert standard. The materials concerned patent infringement and invalidity, possible damages, and efforts to exclude or strike expert opinions.

For the first motion, Intel sought to seal highlighted portions of its summary-judgment motion and listed exhibits, including expert reports, deposition transcripts, and a confidential settlement and patent-license agreement. Intel argued that the materials contained confidential information about its product designs and operations, proposed designs, manufacturing processes, and licensing arrangements. Intel supported the request with a declaration from Mark Selwyn.

For the second motion, Intel sought to seal highlighted portions of its reply supporting its omnibus Daubert motion and excerpts from two exhibits. Intel identified confidential licensing information, including license-payment terms and the scope of license agreements, as well as confidential technical information about the design, development, and operation of its product features.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the materials were tied to summary-judgment and expert-evidence motions concerning the merits of the patent case, Intel had to show compelling reasons for sealing them. The court also said that a sealing request must be narrowly tailored.

Ruling

The court found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions of the documents covered by both motions. It accepted that disclosure could reveal highly confidential technical, business, and licensing information and could give competitors an unfair advantage. The court also found that the requests were narrowly tailored.

The court therefore granted Intel’s administrative motion at ECF No. 579 and granted Intel’s administrative motion at ECF No. 591. The opinion does not state that either motion was granted in part or denied in part.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.