Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-57/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO.,

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDIATEK, INC., et al.,

Defendants 

MEDIATEK, INC,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO.,

LTD., et al.

Counterclaim Defendants

 /

No. C 05-3148 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DEFERRING IN PART RULING ON

DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO FILE CONFIDENTIAL

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Before the Court is defendants’ “Unopposed Administrative Motion Pursuant to Local

Rules 7-11 and 79-5(b) to File Confidential Documents Under Seal,” filed April 9, 2007, by

which defendants seek leave to file under seal an unredacted version of seven declarations

offered in support of their motion for summary judgment and 39 exhibits offered in support

of the motion.

“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document,

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 639 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 6
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

2

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

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

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. “A stipulation . . . will not suffice to allow the

filing of documents under seal.” Id.

Having reviewed the Declaration of Eugene Chen (“Chen”) offered in support of the

instant administrative motion, the Court finds good cause exists to GRANT the motion in

part, specifically, to grant the motion as it pertains to the eight documents identified below. 

Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to file under seal unredacted versions of the

following eight documents:

1. Declaration of Ahmad R. S. Bahai;

2. Exhibit D to the Declaration of Ahmad R. S. Bahai;

3. Exhibit G to the Declaration of Ahmad R. S. Bahai; 

4. Declaration of Chwei Hung Chang, including Exhibit B thereto;

5. Declaration of Che Hsiang Hsu, including Exhibit A thereto;

6. Declaration of Lee Soon Peng;

7. Declaration of Chao Chun Twu, including Exhibits A, B, and C thereto; and

8. Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Steven Wasserman.

To the extent defendants’ motion requests leave to file additional documents under

seal, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on said motion, as follows:

1. Defendants have failed to show good cause exists to file under seal in its entirety

the declaration of Jeffrey Bokor. Although portions of the declaration, arguably, may

contain information that is sealable, (see, e.g., Bokor Decl. ¶ 63), it is clear from a review of

the declaration that the vast majority of said declaration consists of material that cannot be

characterized as confidential. (See, e.g., Bokor Decl. ¶¶ 2-8 (discussing declarant’s

educational and professional background); id. ¶¶ 9-14 (discussing information pertaining

generally to semiconductor manufacturing processes); id. ¶ 26-27 (discussing matter

publicly disclosed in patent); id. ¶ 41 (discussing how person skilled in art would

understand terms in patent); id. ¶ 84 (discussing compensation provided to declarant by

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 639 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 6
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

These examples are illustrative, and in no means intended as an exhaustive listing

of the material that plainly is not confidential.

3

defendant MediaTek, Inc).1

 Defendants are, however, afforded leave to do the following,

no later than April 20, 2007: (1) publicly file a redacted version of said declaration that

contains the portions thereof not subject to sealing; and (2) submit for sealing the

unredacted version of said declaration, along with a supplemental declaration setting forth

the reason(s) why any portions of said declaration are “privileged or protectable as a trade

secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). If

defendants, as of April 20, 2007, fail to make a sufficient showing, the motion will be denied

as to said declaration, and the Clerk will be directed to follow the procedure set forth in Civil

Local Rule 79-5(e).

2. Defendants have failed to show good cause exists to file under seal Exhibits 6, 7,

and 89 to the Bokor Declaration, because such documents appear to consist entirely of

material publicly available from the Patent and Trademark Office. Defendants are,

however, afforded leave to file, no later than April 20, 2007, a supplemental declaration

setting forth the reason(s) why such exhibits are, in spite of their apparent public nature,

“privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the

law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). If defendants, as of April 20, 2007, fail to make a sufficient

showing as to one or more of the exhibits in question, the motion will be denied as to each

such exhibit as to which such insufficient showing has been made, and the Clerk will be

directed to follow the procedure set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

3. Defendants have failed to show good cause exists to file under seal in its entirety

the declaration of Steven Wasserman. Again, while portions of said declaration, arguably, 

may contain information that is sealable, (see, e.g., Wasserman Decl. ¶ 39), it is clear from

a review of the declaration that the vast majority of said declaration consists of material that

cannot be characterized as confidential. (See, e.g., Wasserman Decl. ¶¶ 1-2 (identifying

patents in which declarant is named as inventor and discussing declarant’s work history);

id. ¶ 4 (discussing information contained in press release); id. ¶¶ 8-13 (generally discussing

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 639 Filed 04/13/07 Page 3 of 6
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

2

Again, these examples are illustrative, and not intended as an exhaustive listing of

the material contained plainly is not confidential.

4

“MPEG” standards); id. ¶ 16 (discussing material in prosecution history); id. ¶ 19

(discussing background of person of ordinary skill in art); id. ¶ 25 (quoting and/or

paraphrasing terms in patent).2

 Defendants are, however, afforded leave to do the

following, no later than April 20, 2007: (1) publicly file a redacted version of said declaration

that contains the portions thereof not subject to sealing; and (2) submit for sealing the

unredacted version of said declaration, along with a supplemental declaration setting forth

the reason(s) why any portions of said declaration are “privileged or protectable as a trade

secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). If

defendants, as of April 20, 2007, fail to make a sufficient showing, the motion will be denied

as to said declaration, and the Clerk will be directed to follow the procedure set forth in Civil

Local Rule 79-5(e).

4. Because defendants represent that Exhibit 6 to the Wasserman Declaration has

been designated confidential by plaintiff, the Court will defer ruling on the request to file

such exhibit under seal until after April 13, 2007, the date by which plaintiff is required to

submit a declaration establishing that such exhibit, either in its entirety or in part, is

sealable. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d).

5. Defendants have failed to show good cause exists to file under seal Exhibits 7

and 11 to the Wasserman Declaration. Although Chen declares that each such exhibit

contains “confidential” material, (see Chen Decl. ¶ 2(g)), Chen fails to provide any

explanation in support of such assertion. Further, the Court has reviewed the documents in

question, and the basis for such conclusion is not readily apparent therefrom. Specifically,

Exhibit 7 consists of excerpts from a deposition, in which the deponent testifies, at least in

part, as to material plainly not confidential, (see, e.g., Wasserman Decl. Ex. 7 at 9:4-10:12

(providing testimony “at a general level” as to nature of “MPEG” standard), while Exhibit 11,

described by Chen as a “flowchart of the ‘475 Patent,” appears to be based entirely on

information contained in the patent. Defendants are, however, afforded leave to do the

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 639 Filed 04/13/07 Page 4 of 6
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

The Court declines to conduct an independent review of the other 23 exhibits to

determine whether there may exist an obvious reason why the entirety of each such exhibit

is confidential in nature. Rather, it is defendants’ obligation to set forth a basis to support

the conclusion that the entirety of each such exhibit is confidential.

5

following, no later than April 20, 2007: (1) publicly file a redacted version of said exhibits

that contains the portions thereof not subject to sealing; and

(2) submit for sealing the unredacted version of said exhibits, along with a supplemental

declaration setting forth the reason(s) why any portions of said declaration are “privileged

or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” See Civil

L.R. 79-5(a). If defendants, as of April 20, 2007, fail to make a sufficient showing as to one

or both of the exhibits in question, the motion will be denied as to each such exhibit as to

which such insufficient showing has been made, and the Clerk will be directed to follow the

procedure set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

6. Defendants have failed to show good cause exists to file under seal Exhibits 1-

18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31 and 32 to the Declaration of Brian C. Cannon. Although Chen

declares that said exhibits contain “confidential information related to defendants’ business

and technology,” (see Chen Decl. ¶ 2(h)), Chen fails to provide any explanation in support

of such assertion. Further, the Court has reviewed the first two such exhibits, and the basis

for Chen’s conclusion is not readily apparent therefrom.3 Specifically, the first two exhibits

consist of excerpts of deposition testimony, and such excerpts consist of at least some

material that plainly is not confidential. (See, e.g., Cannon Decl. Ex. 1 at 63:7-22 (providing

testimony as to general definition of “market share”); id. Ex. 2 at 147:24 - 148:6 (providing

testimony as to whether deponent is familiar with term of art “single ended voltage signal”).) 

Defendants are, however, afforded leave to do the following, no later than April 20, 2007:

(1) publicly file a redacted version of said exhibits that contains the portions thereof not

subject to sealing; and (2) submit for sealing the unredacted version of said exhibits, along

with a supplemental declaration setting forth the reason(s) why any portions of said

declaration are “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to

protection under the law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). If defendants, as of April 20, 2007, fail to

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 639 Filed 04/13/07 Page 5 of 6
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

4

In his declaration, Chen also states that “the exhibits” contain material designated

by “other parties” as “confidential.” (See Chen Decl. ¶ 2(h). To the extent any or all of the

exhibits attached to the Cannon Declaration have been designated as confidential by

plaintiff, defendants need only state such fact in a supplemental declaration, after which

plaintiff, within five days, in order to avoid the exhibits’ being filed in the public record, must

file a declaration that establishes the grounds for filing each such exhibit under seal. See

Civil L.R. 79-5(d).

6

make a sufficient showing as to one or more of the exhibits in question, the motion will be

denied as to each such exhibit as to which such insufficient showing has been made, and

the Clerk will be directed to follow the procedure set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).4

7. Although not expressly requested in their motion to file documents under seal,

defendants have submitted for filing under seal an unredacted version of their motion for

summary judgment. The apparent basis for such request is that the motion references

some of the evidence defendants are seeking leave to file under seal. In light of the Court’s

having deferred ruling on the majority of defendants’ requests to seal documents in support

of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court likewise defers ruling on

defendants’ request to file under seal an unredacted version of the motion itself.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 639 Filed 04/13/07 Page 6 of 6