VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-05671
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Judge Freeman granted Intel’s motion to seal selected opposition excerpts containing confidential business information.
Intel, VLSI, and members of the public seeking access to the identified portions of Intel’s opposition.
What happened
In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Intel asked to seal selected portions of its opposition to VLSI’s motion concerning a magistrate judge’s pretrial order.
The court said the filing was closely related to the case’s merits, so Intel had to show compelling reasons for secrecy. Intel argued that disclosure of its financial decisions, marketing research, customer preferences, potential price premiums, and product-sales strategies could give competitors and business partners unfair insight.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Intel’s administrative motion to seal. The order covered the highlighted portions revealing Intel’s confidential analysis about product features, pricing, and expected effects on sales.
The detailed version
- VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation · No. 5:17-cv-05671
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
Intel filed an administrative motion to seal selected portions of its opposition to VLSI Technology LLC’s motion for relief from a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order. The opposition concerned a motion to strike VLSI’s expert opinions about available damages for alleged infringement.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the filing was more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, Intel had to provide compelling reasons to overcome that presumption.
Intel’s request
Intel sought to seal selected excerpts discussing its financial decisions and marketing research and strategies. Intel stated that the excerpts contained confidential analysis of the features its customers value, potential price premiums for those features, and how it expected particular features to affect product sales. Intel argued that disclosure could give competitors and potential counterparties unfair insight into its business strategies and cost-benefit analyses, and that no less restrictive alternative to sealing was available.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Intel’s administrative motion to seal. The ruling covered the green-highlighted portions of Intel’s opposition that revealed this confidential analysis.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.