VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-05671
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In VLSI Technology v. Intel, Judge Freeman granted one sealing motion and denied two others over confidential patent-damages information.
The ruling directly affects VLSI’s confidential business and technical information and Intel’s reply; it also resolves Intel’s sealing motions concerning materials associated with NXP Semiconductors and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
What happened
VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation concerned three motions about sealing parts of Intel’s reply supporting its motion to challenge VLSI’s expert opinions on patent-infringement damages.
The court granted Intel’s motion concerning VLSI’s confidential damages analyses and proprietary technical information. It denied the motion concerning NXP because NXP did not seek to seal anything, and denied the motion concerning the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation because that organization did not submit a supporting declaration.
Judge Beth Freeman ruled that the materials were closely related to the case’s merits, requiring compelling reasons for sealing, and ordered ECF No. 593 granted and ECF Nos. 594 and 595 denied.
The detailed version
- VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation · No. 5:17-cv-05671
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
Intel filed three administrative motions concerning whether materials from another party should remain sealed in Intel’s reply supporting its omnibus motion challenging VLSI’s expert opinions about available damages for alleged patent infringement. The motions were ECF Nos. 593, 594, and 595.
For ECF No. 593, VLSI asked to seal selected portions of Intel’s reply. VLSI said those portions contained confidential information about its damages theories, licensing efforts and history, and specific terms of its agreements with NXP Semiconductors. The court’s discussion also described the material as including proprietary technical analyses concerning two patents-in-suit and physical accused products.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally are presumed open to public inspection. Because the reply concerned a motion challenging expert opinions about damages and was more than tangentially related to the case’s merits, a party seeking to seal material had to show “compelling reasons” that outweighed the public’s interest in access. The request also had to be narrowly tailored.
Discussion
The court found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions covered by ECF No. 593. It concluded that the information was highly confidential and proprietary and that disclosure could cause VLSI significant competitive and business harm. The court also found the request narrowly tailored.
The court denied ECF No. 594 because NXP filed a supporting declaration but did not seek to seal anything from Intel’s reply. The court denied ECF No. 595 because the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation did not file a declaration supporting that administrative motion.
Order
Judge Beth Freeman ordered:
- ECF No. 593: granted. - ECF No. 594: denied. - ECF No. 595: denied.
Thus, the order was granted in part and denied in part as to Intel’s three administrative motions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.