VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-05671
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 20
In VLSI Technology v. Intel, Judge Freeman granted some sealing motions, denied others, and partially granted one.
Intel Corporation, VLSI Technology LLC, NXP, IBM, IPValue Management, Inc., IPValue Management Group, LLC, Tahoe Research, Ltd., UNMRI, and other parties whose information appeared in the filings were affected by the decisions about which portions would remain sealed or public.
What happened
In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Intel asked to seal portions of filings and exhibits connected to its motion challenging expert evidence. The materials included information belonging to Intel, VLSI, NXP, IBM, IPValue entities, Tahoe Research, and UNMRI.
The court found compelling reasons to seal narrowly identified portions containing confidential technical, financial, licensing, damages, and business information. It denied requests when no supporting declarations were filed and found UNMRI’s request to seal nearly an entire expert report too broad.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted ECF Nos. 617, 537, and 538; denied ECF Nos. 539, 551, and 552; and granted ECF No. 540 for information sought by IBM, IPValue Management, Inc., IPValue Management Group, LLC, and Tahoe Research, Ltd., while denying it for information sought by UNMRI.
The detailed version
- VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation · No. 5:17-cv-05671
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 26, 2023
Background
Intel filed an omnibus motion concerning expert testimony and related exhibits. Intel then filed several administrative motions asking the court to keep portions of the motion and exhibits from public view. The materials concerned issues related to patent infringement and invalidity, damages, and efforts to strike or exclude expert opinions.
The court addressed seven administrative motions: Intel’s renewed request to seal its own information, ECF No. 617; requests concerning material belonging to VLSI, ECF No. 537; NXP and Franklin FundingCo, ECF No. 538; Microsoft, HP, Lenovo, IBM, and other entities, ECF No. 539; additional entities including IBM, IPValue entities, Tahoe Research, and UNMRI, ECF No. 540; Dell, ECF No. 551; and Test Research, VIA Technologies, Catalyst Semiconductor, Acer, and/or Sharp, ECF No. 552.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the records here were connected to motions more than tangentially related to the case’s merits, a party seeking to seal them had to show “compelling reasons” that outweighed public access. The requested redactions also had to be narrowly tailored. The court stated that broad, unsupported claims of harm were insufficient.
Rulings
The court granted ECF No. 617. It found compelling reasons to seal the identified portions of Intel’s filings and exhibits because they contained confidential information about Intel’s product designs and operations, proposed designs, manufacturing processes, source code, process recipes, manufacturing capacity, revenues, profits, costs, sales, pricing, discounts, rebates, business strategies, licenses, payment terms, and licensing counterparties. The court found the request narrowly tailored.
The court granted ECF No. 537, concerning VLSI’s information. The sealed portions contained VLSI’s confidential and proprietary damages analyses and methodologies, licensing history and terms, and information concerning agreements with NXP Semiconductors. The court found that disclosure could cause competitive and business harm to VLSI and provide an unfair advantage to Intel and potential license counterparties.
The court granted ECF No. 538, concerning NXP’s information. The sealed portions described confidential patent agreements involving NXP/Freescale and other parties, as well as NXP/Freescale’s intellectual-property licensing and monetization practices, activities, capabilities, efforts, and related employee information.
The court denied ECF No. 539 because no party filed a supporting declaration. The court granted ECF No. 540 with respect to information that IBM, IPValue Management, Inc., IPValue Management Group, LLC, and Tahoe Research, Ltd. sought to seal. It found that the information involved, among other things, patent purchase agreements and confidential business strategies. The court denied ECF No. 540 with respect to UNMRI’s request because UNMRI sought to seal nearly all of a more-than-100-page expert report and did not explain why the entire document needed protection. The court found that request overly broad and not narrowly tailored.
The court denied ECF Nos. 551 and 552 because no party filed supporting declarations. The order addressed sealing only and did not decide the underlying patent or expert-evidence issues.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.