Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138-26/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ATMEL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AUTHENTEC INC,

Defendant. /

No. C-06-02138 CW (EDL)

FURTHER ORDER RE: MOTION TO

MODIFY THE DESIGNATION OF

ALLEGEDLY HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

DOCUMENTS

On November 21, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion to Modify the Designation of Allegedly

Highly-Confidential Documents, arguing that Plaintiff’s over-designation of documents as highly

confidential - attorneys’ eyes only prevented Defendant’s in-house lawyer from reviewing them

before the December 18, 2007 mediation. The Court shortened time on the Motion to Modify and

set it for hearing on December 11, 2007. The Court vacated the hearing on the Motion to Modify in

light of the parties’ meet and confer session scheduled for the same day. On December 12, 2007, the

parties filed a joint letter listing ten documents from the Motion to Modify that were in dispute. On

December 14, 2007, the Court issued an Order with respect to those documents. On December 14,

2007, shortly after the Court issued its Order, the parties filed another joint letter listing eighteen

additional documents from the Motion to Modify that remained in dispute. The parties had reported

to the Court on December 11, 2007 that they hoped to be able to resolve disputes about these

eighteen documents, but now state that they have reached an impasse on the eve of the long-planned

mediation. 

The Court has carefully reviewed the remaining disputed documents contained in the

December 14, 2007 letter and rules as follows:

Exhibit A1 to the Olivia Kim declaration is a 1995 e-mail that related to the patent-in-suit. 

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 257 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Exhibit A2 to the Kim declaration related to a 1995 search for fingerprint sensors for research and

development. Exhibits A7 and A9 to the Kim declaration concern research and development in

1996. In this industry of changing technology, these documents dated more than ten years ago are

too stale to be highly confidential. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Highly

Confidential Designation of Exhibits A1, A2, A7 and A9 is granted; these exhibits shall be

designated as confidential.

Exhibits B1, B2, B3 and B4 to the Kim declaration are more recent documents, but do not

contain Plaintiff’s trade secrets or highly confidential information. To the contrary, the documents

concern Plaintiff’s analysis of Defendant’s and other competitors’ products. Similarly, exhibits B6,

B7, B8 and B9 reflect analysis of Defendant’s products and not highly confidential, except that to

err on the side of caution, Plaintiff may redact from exhibit B6 as possibly highly confidential the

information starting from “Conso Fingertip” until “the numbers are given to the [illegible], needs to

be verified.” Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Highly Confidential Designation of

Exhibits B1, B2, B3, B4, B6, B7, B8 and B9 is granted; these exhibits shall be designated as

confidential, except the portion of B6 as described above. 

Exhibit C3 to the Kim declaration is a 2006 marketing presentation to customers. The Court

is doubtful whether any, much less all, of this document should remain highly confidential, and

expects that if the case goes to trial, documents like these will become public, but lacks sufficient

information to rule. Accordingly, the Court defers decision on this pending further briefing if the

parties wish to pursue its designation. 

Exhibit D1 to the Kim declaration is a summary comparison of the parties’ and another

competitor’s products. The Court is doubtful that this summary comparison is highly confidential,

and the parties have not provided sufficient information from which the Court can make that

determination. Accordingly, the Court defers decision on this pending further briefing if the parties

wish to pursue its designation. 

Exhibit D2 to the Kim declaration primarily discusses patents as related to competitor’s

products. This information does not constitute trade secret or other highly confidential information. 

To the contrary, the documents contain analysis of others’ products based on publicly available

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 257 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

information such as a competitor’s website. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Highly

Confidential Designation of Exhibit D2 is granted; this exhibit shall be designated as confidential. 

With respect to exhibits C1 and C2 to the Kim declaration, Defendant concedes that pages

AML026386, 389, 395 and 396 in exhibit C1 and pages AML32292, 302, 303, 309, 311, 312, 313 in

exhibit C2 should remain highly confidential. The Court agrees. The Court also agrees that at least

some of the other pages should not be designated as highly confidential (e.g., AML026376, which is

an introductory slide). The parties, however, have not given the Court sufficient information to

reach a decision on many of the remaining pages. Accordingly, the Court defers decision on these

pending further briefing if the parties wish to pursue their designation. 

Exhibits A and B to the Ethan Andelman declaration are at least partially in French and there

is no translation provided. Also, the parties have not given the Court sufficient other information to

reach a decision these exhibits. Accordingly, the Court defers decision on these pending further

briefing if the parties wish to pursue their designation. 

The Court is mindful that Plaintiff sought a stay of the Court’s December 14, 2007 Order

granting in part Defendant’s Motion to Modify. Earlier today, the Court issued an Order denying

the motion to stay. As to the propriety of a stay of this Order, the Court does not see any difference

between the set of documents that was the subject of the December 14, 2007 Order and the

documents herein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 257 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 3