Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-126/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

DENYING IN PART FAIRCHILD’S

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

PORTIONS OF ITS OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO EXCLUDE ROBERT

PALMATIER, AND SUPPORTING

EXHIBITS

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

2015, by defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor

Corporation, and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (collectively, “Fairchild”) pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 79-5, by which Fairchild seeks permission to seal the entirety of Exhibits E and

G to the Declaration of Christina A. Ondrick (“Ondrick Declaration”) filed in support of

“Fairchild’s Brief in Opposition to Power Integrations’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of

Robert Palmatier,” as well as portions of Fairchild’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,

Fairchild and plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) have submitted

respective declarations in support of Fairchild’s administrative motion. See Civil L. R. 79-

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 753 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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 permission to seal the entirety of

Exhibit G to the Ondrick Declaration, the Court finds good cause has been shown, and the

motion is hereby GRANTED. Exhibit G shall remain filed under seal.

“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). According to the parties, Exhibit E

contains “both parties’ technical, financial, strategic marketing and product status

information.” (See Ondrick Decl. ¶ 5; Headley Decl. ¶ 3.) It would appear, however, that

Exhibit E, which consists of a two-page excerpt from the report of Jonathan D. Putnam,

Ph.D., in which said expert sets forth his opinions as to the value of the infringing features

of Fairchild’s products, contains no confidential information. Likewise, the redacted

portions of the opposition, including those portions that reference Exhibit G, contain no

confidential information. 

Accordingly, the administrative motion to seal is hereby DENIED with respect to

Exhibit E and the redacted portions of the opposition, and Fairchild is hereby DIRECTED to

file in the public record Exhibit E and the unredacted opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 753 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 2