Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-122/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.

Defendants. /

No. C-09-5235 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING

IN PART, AND DEFERRING RULING IN

PART ON FAIRCHILD’S MOTION TO

FILE UNDER SEAL ITS MOTION TO

EXCLUDE ARTHUR W. KELLEY AND

CHARLES L. COLBY, AND

SUPPORTING EXHIBITS

Before the Court is an administrative motion to file under seal, filed September 4,

2015, by defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor

Corporation, and Fairchild Corporation (collectively, “Fairchild”), pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 79-5, by which Fairchild seeks permission to seal the entirety of Exhibits A - C and F

to the Declaration of Christina A. Ondrick (“Ondrick Declaration”) filed in support of

“Fairchild’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Arthur W. Kelley and Charles

L. Colby,” as well as portions of Fairchild’s motion that make reference to said exhibits. 

According to Fairchild, all of the material sought to be sealed has been designated

confidential by plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”), and, in accordance

with the Local Rules of this district, Power Integrations has submitted a responsive

declaration in support of Fairchild’s administrative motion. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e)

(providing, where party seeks to file under seal material designated confidential by another

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 749 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

See, e.g., Ondrick Decl. Ex. A (Kelley Report) at 14-20 (discussing background

information regarding energy efficiency standards and technologies); Ex. B (Kelley

Deposition) at 18-21 (discussing expert’s approach to determining value of patent). The

foregoing citations serve as representative examples; such examples do not constitute the

entirety of the redacted material that the Court has found is not sealable. 

2

party, designating party must file, within four days, “a declaration . . . establishing that all of

the designated information is sealable”). Having read and considered the administrative

motion and the responsive declaration, the Court rules as follows.

To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal the entirety of Exhibit C to the

Ondrick Declaration and the related portions of the motion to exclude, the Court finds good

cause has been shown, and the motion is hereby GRANTED. The exhibit and unredacted

motion shall remain filed under seal. 

In its responsive declaration, Power Integrations states it did not designate Exhibit F

to the Ondrick Declaration as confidential (see Headley Decl. at 3:27-28), and, accordingly,

Fairchild’s request to file Exhibit F under seal is DENIED. Fairchild is hereby DIRECTED to

file the entirety of Exhibit F in the public record.

According to Power Integrations’s responsive declaration, Exhibit A “analyzes and

quotes directly from both parties’ confidential internal technical, financial, marketing, and

sales documentation,” as well as “Fairchild’s internal evaluations and details regarding

product development,” and Exhibit B contains “the same sort of confidential technical and

market-related documentation that was discussed in [Exhibit A].” (See Headley Decl. ¶ 3.) 

Although the Court agrees that Exhibits A and B contain such sealable material, each

exhibit also appears to contain a substantial amount of non-sealable material.1 “A sealing

order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions

thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection

under the law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The request “must be narrowly tailored to seek

sealing only of sealable material.” See id. 

In lieu of denial, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on the administrative motion to the

extent it seeks to seal Exhibits A and B, pending Power Integrations’s filing, by 

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 749 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

November 3, 2015, a supplemental response that identifies, with specificity, the portions of

said exhibits that contain confidential information. Pending the Court’s ruling on the

supplemental response, said exhibits will remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 749 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 3