Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v. Longhorn IP LLC

Background

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC), Longhorn IP LLC, and Hamilcar Barca IP, LLC jointly renewed a motion to seal substantial portions of the complaint and its exhibits, briefing on a motion to dismiss, and the parties’ January 9, 2024 joint case-management statement. The court said this was the parties’ second consolidated sealing motion, after it had found their earlier requests substantially overbroad and insufficiently supported.

Legal standard

The court explained that the public has a strong right to inspect and copy judicial records. A party seeking to seal records must provide specific reasons showing why secrecy is needed and what harm would result without it. The court must balance the public’s interest in access against the interests of the party seeking to keep information confidential. Embarrassment, possible incrimination, or possible further litigation, standing alone, does not justify sealing.

Ruling

The court allowed redaction of the Katana and Carthage bank-account numbers, routing numbers, and international bank-transfer codes in Exhibits I and J to the complaint, treating them as sensitive financial-account information appropriate for redaction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a). It also allowed redaction of specific monetary values discussed, agreed to, or paid during negotiations with the parties and third parties, because those amounts were not relevant to the dispute. The order identifies the permitted redactions by document and location.

The court found the request to seal the remaining terms significantly overbroad. It concluded that the parties had not shown compelling reasons to conceal terms governing how the standstill agreement’s duration would be determined or the purpose and operation of the intellectual-property collaboration and services agreement. Those terms were central to the merits because Counts 1 through 7 of TSMC’s complaint sought to enforce them or impose liability for their breach. The court therefore held that the public’s interest in understanding the federal litigation outweighed the parties’ confidentiality interests for those terms.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the renewed motion to seal. It ordered the parties to file on the public docket, within 14 days, each document previously filed under seal, with only the redactions permitted by the order. The judge’s name is unclear in the provided opinion text.