Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-56/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 489, 498, 532

This order addresses several pending administrative motions to file under seal.

Dkt. No. 489: GRANTED as to Exhibits 4 and 5 and DENIED as to Exhibit 6. See Dkt. 

No. 509. MLC shall file a fully redacted version of Exhibit 6 in the public record.

Dkt. No. 498: GRANTED as to the first highlighted portion of the motion. DENIED as to 

the second highlighted portion of the motion which addresses MLC’s damages case. There is 

nothing confidential about that section. MLC shall refile the opposition with the second highlighted 

portion in the public record.

Dkt. No. 532: DENIED. Micron states that material at issue is not confidential. Dkt. No. 

552. MLC shall file a fully unredacted version of Exhibit 141in the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1

 Exhibit 14 is an exhibit to Mr. Marino’s declaration filed in support of MLC’s reply to 

“MLC’s Damages-Related Motions in Limine Re Liesgang and Meyer.” Exhibit 14 appears to be

the only exhibit filed in connection with MLC’s reply brief. Mr. Marino also filed a declaration in 

connection with MLC’s Damages-Related Motions in Limine Re Liesgang and Meyer (Dkt. Nos. 

453-454). That declaration contained Exhibits 1-14, and Exhibit 14 in support of the motion is 

different than the Reply Exhibit 14. It is unclear to the Court whether the Reply Exhibit is misnumbered and should be Exhibit 15, or whether the Reply Exhibit 14 replaces the original Exhibit 

14. 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 587 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 1