Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-124/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 AND

DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON

POWER INTEGRATIONS’S MOTION TO

FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE

JONATHAN D. PUTNAM, AND

SUPPORTING EXHIBITS

Before the Court is an administrative motion to file under seal, filed September 14,

2015, by plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”), pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 79-5, by which Power Integrations seeks permission to seal the entirety of Exhibits 1 -

3 to the Declaration of Michael R. Headley (“Headley Declaration”) filed in support of

“Power Integrations’ Opposition to Fairchild’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr.

Jonathan D. Putnam,” as well as portions of Power Integrations’s opposition that make

reference to said exhibits. 

All of the material sought to be sealed has been designated confidential by both

parties, and, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Rules of this district, Power

Integrations and defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild

Semiconductor Corporation, and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (collectively, “Fairchild”)

have submitted respective declarations in support of Power Integrations’s administrative

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 751 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., Headley Decl. Ex. 1 (Putnam Deposition) at 170-73 (discussing expert’s

general methodology); Ex. 3 (Putnam Report) at 68-76 (discussing case authority

concerning determination of damages in patent suits). 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

motion. See Civil L. R. 79-5(d) (providing motion to file document under seal must be

“accompanied by . . . [a] declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under

seal, or portions thereof, are sealable”); Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e) (providing, where party seeks

to file under seal material designated confidential by another 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 parties’

respective declarations, the Court rules as follows.

To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal the entirety of Exhibit 2 to the

Headley Declaration and the related portions of the opposition, the Court finds good cause

has been shown, and the motion is hereby GRANTED. Exhibit 2 shall remain filed under

seal. 

According to the parties’ respective declarations, Exhibit 1 contains “internal sales,

profitability, and other competitive and financial data” (see Headley Decl. ¶ 3; Ondrick Decl.

¶ 4), and Exhibit 3 similarly contains “sales, profitability, margin, customer, and other

competitive information” (see Headley Decl. ¶ 3; Ondrick Decl. ¶ 6). Although the Court

agrees that Exhibits 1 and 3 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 Exhibit 1, Exhibit 3, and the related portions of the opposition,

pending each parties’ filing, by November 3, 2015, a supplemental response that identifies,

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 751 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

with specificity, the portions of said exhibits and opposition that contain such party’s

confidential information. Pending the Court’s ruling on the parties’ supplemental

responses, said exhibits and the redacted opposition 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 751 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 3