VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Background

The court considered eight administrative motions seeking to seal selected portions of filings and supporting materials connected with VLSI Technology LLC’s motion to dismiss Intel Corporation’s counterclaim. The motions were ECF Nos. 869, 870, 875, 877, 878, 879, 889, and 890.

The materials included portions of VLSI’s motion and reply, Intel’s opposition, excerpts from a deposition, and a report. The proposed redactions concerned information about Intel’s and Finjan’s patent licenses and license agreements, NXP’s confidential patent agreements and business strategies, Fortress’s financial and investment information, and other confidential business information. One filing also contained personal information that the court found irrelevant to the case.

Legal Standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, a party seeking to seal material must show compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in access. For records connected only tangentially or not connected to the merits, the lower good-cause standard applies. That standard requires a particularized showing of specific harm or prejudice from disclosure; broad, unsupported claims of harm are insufficient.

Rulings

For ECF Nos. 869 and 870, the court found compelling reasons to seal highlighted portions reflecting confidential excerpts from Intel’s license agreement with Finjan and related license information that had previously been sealed.

For ECF No. 875, the court granted Intel’s request to seal highlighted portions of its opposition to VLSI’s motion to dismiss Intel’s second amended answer, defenses, and counterclaims. The court found that the redacted material contained confidential excerpts from Intel’s license agreement with Finjan.

For ECF No. 877, the court granted the request to seal portions of Intel’s opposition and related materials that cited or reflected confidential information about Finjan’s licenses and license-agreement terms.

For ECF No. 878, the court granted the request to seal highlighted portions of deposition testimony identifying confidential patent agreements involving NXP and Freescale and describing confidential business information about corporate objectives and strategy.

For ECF No. 879, the court granted the request to seal highlighted portions of a VLSI report containing sensitive and proprietary internal financial analysis, investment and accounting information, proprietary financial-analysis methods, and irrelevant personal information.

For ECF Nos. 889 and 890, the court granted requests to seal portions of VLSI’s reply and related materials that cited or reflected confidential excerpts from Intel’s and Finjan’s license agreements and license-agreement terms.

The court concluded that all eight administrative motions were GRANTED. This order decided the sealing requests; it did not rule on the underlying motion to dismiss Intel’s counterclaim.