VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-05671
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In VLSI Technology v. Intel, Judge Freeman granted one sealing motion and denied another, protecting specified Intel information but not Microsoft information.
VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corporation were directly affected by the ruling on Intel’s information. Microsoft Corporation was affected by the denial of the request concerning its information.
What happened
In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, VLSI asked the court to seal parts of its opposition to Intel’s expert-evidence motion and related exhibits. One request concerned Intel’s information, and the other concerned Microsoft’s information.
The court found that the materials were closely connected to the patent case’s merits, so the parties had to show compelling reasons for secrecy. It found that selected portions contained confidential technical, financial, licensing, and other business information about Intel and that the requested redactions were appropriately limited.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted VLSI’s motion concerning Intel’s information, ECF No. 573, and denied the motion concerning Microsoft’s information, ECF No. 575, because Microsoft had not submitted a supporting declaration. The order therefore granted one motion and denied the other.
The detailed version
- VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation · No. 5:17-cv-05671
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
VLSI Technology LLC filed two administrative motions asking the court to consider sealing portions of its opposition to Intel Corporation’s omnibus motion to exclude expert testimony and accompanying exhibits. ECF No. 573 concerned information belonging to Intel. ECF No. 575 concerned confidential information belonging to Microsoft Corporation.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the records at issue were more than tangentially related to the merits of the patent case—including infringement, invalidity, damages, and efforts to exclude expert opinions—the parties seeking secrecy had to establish compelling reasons that outweighed public access. The court also required the requests to be narrowly tailored.
Ruling on ECF No. 573
Intel supported sealing selected portions of VLSI’s opposition and exhibits. Intel identified confidential technical information about product design, operation, development, testing, manufacturing, and source code; licensing information such as payment terms and agreement scope; and financial information such as sales volume, pricing, revenue, profits, costs, and financial analyses.
The court found that the identified portions revealed confidential business information and that the request was narrowly tailored. It granted the specified redactions in VLSI’s opposition and the identified exhibits, including portions of expert reports, an internal presentation, deposition materials, and other Intel-related documents. The order’s summary included an exception for Table 15 on page 130 of Exhibit 35, which was addressed separately in the court’s document-by-document ruling.
Ruling on ECF No. 575
The court stated that Microsoft did not file a declaration supporting the motion concerning Microsoft’s information. It therefore denied ECF No. 575.
Disposition
The court stated that the administrative motions were granted in part and denied in part. Its final order granted ECF No. 573 and denied ECF No. 575. The opinion does not state that either motion was granted or denied with prejudice or without prejudice.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.