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 the parties’ motion to seal specified portions of a prior dismissal order.
VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corporation, as well as members of the public seeking access to the specified portions of the court’s prior order.
What happened
In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, the parties asked to seal portions of a prior court order concerning infringement and license-agreement terms. The requested material included excerpts from Intel’s license agreement with Finjan.
Intel argued that disclosure could give competitors an unfair advantage and harm Intel’s future business dealings. VLSI did not oppose the proposed redactions. Because the material was closely related to the case’s merits, the court required compelling reasons for sealing it.
Judge Freeman found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions and concluded that the request was narrowly tailored. The court granted the joint administrative motion, covering specified lines on pages 6, 7, and 8 of the prior order.
The detailed version
- VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation · No. 5:17-cv-05671
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 4, 2024
Background
The parties filed a joint administrative motion to seal portions of the Court’s Order Granting VLSI’s Motion to Dismiss, identified as ECF No. 903. The order concerned infringement and license-agreement terms. The material proposed for sealing consisted of green-highlighted portions of page 6, lines 3–6, 8–12, and 21; page 7, lines 11–13 and 19; and page 8, line 3. The court stated that these portions contained confidential excerpts from Intel’s license agreement with Finjan that the court had previously sealed.
Legal Standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the material was more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the parties had to show compelling reasons that outweighed public access. The court also stated that a sealing request must be narrowly tailored.
Parties’ Positions
Intel argued that disclosure could put it at a competitive disadvantage because competitors could use the information in their business strategies. Intel said the proposed redactions were necessary and narrowly tailored to protect confidential, non-public licensing information. VLSI did not oppose Intel’s proposed redactions.
Ruling
The court found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions and determined that the request was narrowly tailored. It therefore granted the parties’ motion at ECF No. 906. The order did not rule again on the underlying motion to dismiss; it addressed only whether specified portions of that earlier order should be sealed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.