IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 11, 2012
TESSERA, INC., PLAINTIFF,
QUALCOMM, INC.; FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATI TECHNOLOGIES, ULC,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART QUALCOMM'S RENEWED MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket No. 176)
Defendant Qualcomm, Inc. seeks leave to file under seal an unredacted version of Exhibit A to its motion to strike Plaintiff Tessera, Inc.'s preliminary infringement contentions. Exhibit A contains Tessera's Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and 15 Infringement Contention, including Appendices A, B and C and 16 excerpts of Appendices D and E. Qualcomm represents that the 17 excerpts of Appendices D and E contain material that it has 18 designated as confidential, and the Amended Disclosure and 19 Appendices A and B contain material that Tessera and Defendants 20 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC have 21 designated as confidential. Tessera, Qualcomm, Freescale, ATI and 22 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), ATI's parent company, have 23 submitted declarations in support of Qualcomm's motion to seal. 24
Because the public interest favors filing all court documents 25 in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under 26 seal must demonstrate good cause to do so. Pintos v. Pac. 27 Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). This cannot 28 be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material 2 is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by 3 a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 4 file each document under seal. See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). If 5 a document has been designated as confidential by another party, 6 that party must file a declaration establishing that the document 7 is sealable. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). 8
Qualcomm represents that the excerpts of Appendices D and E 9 contain cross-sectional views of its accused product families, 10 which depict the specific design and content of its chip packages. Scott Decl. ¶ 5. It states this information is highly proprietary and that disclosure of this information to its competitors could 13 devalue these assets and hurts its ability to compete. Id. at 14 ¶ 6. Having reviewed the contents of the excerpts of Appendices D and E, the Court finds that Qualcomm has established good cause to 16 seal them. 17 Tessera, ATI, AMD and Freescale seek to seal portions of section eight of the Amended Disclosure. Tessera states that this section contains confidential information about its licensing 20 negotiations with prospective licensees and facts about the 21 breadth of its licensing program and the number of Tessera 22 licensees, and that disclosure of such information would hurt its 23 ability to continue to license its technology successfully. 24
McDonald Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5. ATI, AMD and Freescale represent that 25 section eight contains confidential information regarding their 26 discussions with Tessera about the patents-in-suit. Chow Decl. 27 ¶¶ 3, 5; Patrick Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5. Having reviewed the relevant 28 excerpt, the Court finds good cause to seal lines 7:6-20, 7:27-8:7, 8:11-9:1 and 9:2-15. The parties have not established 2 good cause to seal lines 7:21-26 and 9:16-24, because these 3 portions merely describe the holdings of this Court, the 4 International Trade Commission and the Federal Circuit, which are 5 public information. 6 Freescale, ATI and AMD also seek to seal portions of Appendices A and B, which list the product families and specific 8 product model numbers that Tessera is accusing in this litigation. 9
Freescale, ATI and AMD state that public disclosure of this 10 information "could prejudice [them] relative to [their] 11 competitors and others with whom [they] engage in business dealings." Chow Decl. ¶ 6; Patrick Decl. ¶ 5. Freescale, ATI and 13 AMD do not explain how the identities of the accused products are 14 confidential or how public disclosure thereof would in fact prejudice them. Accordingly, the Court finds that they have not 16 established good cause to seal portions of these appendices. 17
Finally, Tessera seeks to seal Exhibit 3 to the Amended Disclosure, which contains the declaration of Kirk E. Flatow. 19 McDonald Decl. ¶ 3. However, Qualcomm has not submitted this 20 document as part of its exhibits in support of its motion to 21 strike. Thus, Tessera's request is denied. 22
Accordingly, Qualcomm's motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part (Docket No. 176). Within four days of the date of 24 this Order, Qualcomm shall file an unredacted version of Exhibit A 25 under seal and a redacted version in the public record. In the 26 version filed in the public record, Qualcomm shall redact lines 27 7:6-20, 7:27-8:7, 8:11-9:1 and 9:2-15 of the Amended Disclosure 28 and the excerpts of Appendices D and E. Qualcomm shall not redact 2 Appendices A, B or C. 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.