Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04963/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04963-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

XILINX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO.KG,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 51, 55

Before the Court are three administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 50, 51, and 55) which 

were filed in connection with Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 52) and Defendant’s Reply in support of Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 56). 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong 

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

Case 5:14-cv-04963-LHK Document 61 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist 

“when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of 

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Motions to dismiss are 

typically treated as dispositive. In re PPA Prods. Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 

2006).

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be 

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-

5(d).” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed 

order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format 

each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of 

the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the 

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id.

With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling

50 50-4 Xilinx’s Opposition to Papst’s 

Motion to Dismiss

GRANTED as to the proposed 

redactions at 7:4-5 and 7:9-24; 

otherwise DENIED WITH 

PREJUDICE because the 

material sought to be sealed is 

not sealable.

51 51-2 Gonder Declaration in Support 

of Xilinx’s Opposition to Papst’s 

Motion to Dismiss

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

Case 5:14-cv-04963-LHK Document 61 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling

51 51-3 Exhibit 26, printouts from public 

websites.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable and 

Defendant’s supporting 

declaration did not indicate 

otherwise.

51 51-4 Exhibit 27, printouts from public 

websites.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable and 

Defendant’s supporting 

declaration did not indicate 

otherwise.

51 51-5 Exhibit 28, Licensing Candidate 

Overview slide deck.

DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE because the 

request is not “narrowly 

tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 

Defendant should identify 

which specific portions of this 

Exhibit that it seeks to seal.

51 51-6 Exhibit 29, Patent Purchase 

Agreement.

DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE because the 

request is not “narrowly 

tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 

Defendant should identify 

which specific portions of this 

Exhibit that it seeks to seal.

51 51-7 Exhibit 30, Letter from FTE to 

Rambus.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

55 55-4 Defendant’s Reply In Support of 

Motion to Dismiss

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

If the parties wish to file any renewed motions to seal consistent with this Order, the 

parties must do so within seven (7) days. For the motions denied with prejudice, the submitting 

party must file an unredacted version of the document within seven (7) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015 __________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04963-LHK Document 61 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 3