VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-05671
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
VLSI Technology v. Intel: Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part motions to seal confidential materials.
VLSI Technology LLC, Intel Corporation, IBM, NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc., NXP Semiconductors B.V., Freescale Semiconductor Inc., and the other nonparties whose materials were considered for sealing.
What happened
In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Intel asked the Northern District of California to seal materials attached to its opposition to VLSI’s motions concerning Intel’s technical and damages experts. VLSI and nonparties including IBM and NXP submitted declarations supporting some requests.
The court held that the materials related closely to the patent-infringement case, so the parties had to show compelling reasons for sealing them. The court found that certain technical analyses, licensing information, damages analyses, patent agreements, and related business information met that standard, but denied requests that lacked supporting declarations.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied ECF Nos. 561, 562, 567, 568, and 569; granted ECF Nos. 565 and 570; and granted ECF No. 566 with respect to IBM but otherwise denied it. The ruling was entered on October 16, 2023.
The detailed version
- VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation · No. 5:17-cv-05671
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
Intel filed administrative motions asking the court to consider sealing materials attached to its oppositions to VLSI’s motions concerning Intel’s technical and damages experts. The motions were ECF Nos. 561, 562, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, and 570. VLSI and nonparties submitted declarations supporting some of the sealing requests, including IBM and NXP.
Legal standard
The court began with the strong presumption that judicial records should be available to the public. Because the materials concerned issues more than tangentially related to the case’s merits—including patent infringement and invalidity, damages, and expert opinions—the parties had to show compelling reasons for sealing them. The court also required the proposed redactions to be narrowly tailored. Requests lacking the necessary showing were denied.
Rulings
The court ruled as follows:
- ECF No. 561: Denied because no party filed supporting declarations. - ECF No. 562: Denied because no party filed supporting declarations. - ECF No. 565: Granted. The court allowed sealing of selected portions involving VLSI’s confidential and proprietary technical analyses, performance testing, analyses of accused products, confidential licenses, and damages analyses. The court found that disclosure could cause competitive and business harm to VLSI and provide an unfair advantage to Intel and potential licensing counterparties. - ECF No. 566: Granted with respect to IBM, but otherwise denied. The court found that IBM made the required showing for narrow redactions concerning patent purchase agreements and business strategies. The motion was denied as to the other nonparties that had been served but had not filed supporting declarations. - ECF No. 567: Denied because no party filed supporting declarations. - ECF No. 568: Denied because no party filed supporting declarations. - ECF No. 569: Denied because no party filed supporting declarations. - ECF No. 570: Granted. The court allowed sealing of selected portions concerning confidential patent agreements and negotiations, intellectual-property licensing and monetization practices, confidential testimony from current and former NXP and Freescale employees, and confidential details concerning the Patent Purchase and Cooperation Agreement between NXP and VLSI.
The order therefore states that the administrative motions were granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.