Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01957/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01957-0/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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

DOUGLAS E. LUMISH (Bar No. 183863)

doug.lumish@lw.com 

RICHARD G. FRENKEL (Bar No. 204133) 

rick.frenkel@lw.com 

NICHOLAS YU (Bar No. 298768) 

nicholas.yu@lw.com 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

140 Scott Drive 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Telephone: +1.650.328.4600 

Facsimile: +1.650.463.2600 

GREGORY K. SOBOLSKI (Bar No. 267428) 

gregory.sobolski@lw.com 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

505 Montgomery St. #2000 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: +1.415.391.0600 

Facsimile: +1.415. 395.8095 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs NANOSYS, INC. 

and MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF 

TECHNOLOGY 

JAMES L. DAY (SBN 197158) 

jday@fbm.com 

WINSTON LIAW (SBN 273899) 

wliaw@fbm.com 

FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP 

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: +1.415.954.4400 

Facsimile: +1.415.954.4480 

Attorneys for Plaintiff THE REGENTS OF 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR W. COVIELLO (SBN 291226)

arthur.coviello@wilmerhale.com 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 

HALE AND DORR LLP 

950 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

Telephone: (650) 858-6000 

Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 

MICHAEL J. SUMMERSGILL (pro hac vice)

DONALD R. STEINBERG (pro hac vice) 

JORDAN L. HIRSCH (pro hac vice) 

michael.summersgill@wilmerhale.com 

donald.steinberg@wilmerhale.com 

jordan.hirsch@wilmerhale.com 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 

HALE AND DORR LLP 

60 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

Telephone: (617) 526-6000 

Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 

Attorneys for Defendant QD VISION, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

NANOSYS, INC., THE REGENTS OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and 

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF 

TECHNOLOGY, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

QD VISION, INC., 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. 4:16-cv-1957-YGR 

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 2

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 

Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 

confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 

disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 

Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following 

Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 

protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 

public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 

confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 

set forth in Section 13.4, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 

confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 

followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to 

file material under seal. 

2. DEFINITIONS 

2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 

information or items under this Order. 

2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 

generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26(c). 

2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 

well as their support staff). 

2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that 

it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. 

2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 

medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 

testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 3

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

responses to discovery in this matter. 

2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 

the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or 

as a consultant in this action, (2) is not a past or current employee of a Party or of a Party’s 

competitor, where “employee” does not include former students of the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology or the University of California (or former students who may have received funding 

or grants from these institutions), and (3) at the time of retention, is not anticipated to become an 

employee of a Party or of a Party’s competitor. 

2.7 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or 

Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another 

Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by 

less restrictive means. 

2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House 

Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 

2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 

entity not named as a Party to this action. 

2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this 

action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this 

action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of 

that party. 

2.11 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 

consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 

2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 

Material in this action. 

2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services 

(e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and 

organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and 

subcontractors. 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 4

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 

“CONFIDENTIAL,” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 

2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 

Producing Party. 

3. SCOPE 

The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material 

(as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) 

all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, 

conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 

However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following 

information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a 

Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as 

a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the 

public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party 

prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who 

obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating 

Party. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 

4. DURATION 

Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by 

this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court 

order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all 

claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after 

the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this 

action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time 

pursuant to applicable law. 

5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 

5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party 

or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 5

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. 

To the extent it is practical to do so, the Designating Party must designate for protection only 

those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify – so 

that other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is 

not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. 

Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are 

shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to 

unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary 

expenses and burdens on other parties) expose the Designating Party to sanctions. 

If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated 

for protection do not qualify for protection at all or do not qualify for the level of protection 

initially asserted, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other parties that it is 

withdrawing the mistaken designation. 

5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in this Order 

(see, e.g., second paragraph of section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, 

Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so 

designated before the material is disclosed or produced. 

Designation in conformity with this Order requires: 

(a) for information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, 

but excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the Producing 

Party affix the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” to each page that contains protected material. 

A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents or materials available for inspection 

need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated which 

material it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and before the designation, all 

of the material made available for inspection shall be deemed “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” After the inspecting Party has identified the documents it wants 

copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine which documents, or portions thereof, 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 6

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

qualify for protection under this Order. Then, before producing the specified documents, the 

Producing Party must affix the appropriate legend (“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”) to each page that contains Protected 

Material. 

(b) for testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings, 

that the Designating Party identify on the record, before the close of the deposition, hearing, or 

other proceeding, all protected testimony and specify the level of protection being asserted. 

When it is impractical to identify separately each portion of testimony that is entitled to 

protection and it appears that substantial portions of the testimony may qualify for protection, the 

Designating Party may invoke on the record (before the deposition, hearing, or other proceeding 

is concluded) a right to have up to 21 days to identify the specific portions of the testimony as to 

which protection is sought and to specify the level of protection being asserted. Only those 

portions of the testimony that are appropriately designated for protection within the 21 days shall 

be covered by the provisions of this Stipulated Protective Order. Alternatively, a Designating 

Party may specify, at the deposition or up to 21 days afterwards if that period is properly 

invoked, that the entire transcript shall be treated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 

Parties shall give the other parties notice if they reasonably expect a deposition, hearing 

or other proceeding to include Protected Material so that the other parties can ensure that only 

authorized individuals who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” 

(Exhibit A) are present at those proceedings. The use of a document as an exhibit at a deposition 

shall not in any way affect its designation as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 

Transcripts containing Protected Material shall have an obvious legend on the title page 

that the transcript contains Protected Material, and the title page shall be followed by a list of all 

pages (including line numbers as appropriate) that have been designated as Protected Material 

and the level of protection being asserted by the Designating Party. The Designating Party shall 

inform the court reporter of these requirements. Any transcript that is prepared before the 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 7

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

expiration of a 21-day period for designation shall be treated during that period as if it had been 

designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” in its entirety unless 

otherwise agreed. After the expiration of that period, the transcript shall be treated only as 

actually designated. 

(c) for information produced in some form other than documentary and for 

any other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the exterior of 

the container or containers in which the information or item is stored the legend 

“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. If only a 

portion or portions of the information or item warrant protection, the Producing Party, to the 

extent practicable, shall identify the protected portion(s) and specify the level of protection being 

asserted. 

5.3 Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent failure to 

designate qualified information or items does not, standing alone, waive the Designating Party’s 

right to secure protection under this Order for such material. Upon timely correction of a 

designation, the Receiving Party must make reasonable efforts to assure that the material is 

treated in accordance with the provisions of this Order. 

6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS 

6.1 Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of 

confidentiality at any time. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party’s confidentiality 

designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, unnecessary economic 

burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party does not waive its right to 

challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a challenge promptly after the 

original designation is disclosed. 

6.2 Meet and Confer. The Challenging Party shall initiate the dispute resolution 

process by providing written notice of each designation it is challenging and describing the basis 

for each challenge. To avoid ambiguity as to whether a challenge has been made, the written 

notice must recite that the challenge to confidentiality is being made in accordance with this 

specific paragraph of the Protective Order. The parties shall attempt to resolve each challenge in 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 7 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 8

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

good faith and must begin the process by conferring directly (in voice to voice dialogue; other 

forms of communication are not sufficient) within 14 days of the date of service of notice. In 

conferring, the Challenging Party must explain the basis for its belief that the confidentiality 

designation was not proper and must give the Designating Party an opportunity to review the 

designated material, to reconsider the circumstances, and, if no change in designation is offered, 

to explain the basis for the chosen designation. A Challenging Party may proceed to the next 

stage of the challenge process only if it has engaged in this meet and confer process first or 

establishes that the Designating Party is unwilling to participate in the meet and confer process in 

a timely manner. 

6.3 Judicial Intervention. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court 

intervention, the parties shall follow the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases regarding 

Discovery and Discovery Motions. The parties may file a joint letter brief regarding retaining 

confidentiality within 21 days of the initial notice of challenge or within 14 days of the parties 

agreeing that the meet and confer process will not resolve their dispute, whichever is earlier. 

Failure by a Designating Party to file such discovery dispute letter within the applicable 21 or 14 

day period (set forth above) with the Court shall automatically waive the confidentiality 

designation for each challenged designation. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court 

allows that a motion may be filed, any such motion must be accompanied by a competent 

declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer requirements 

imposed in the preceding paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may elect to transfer the 

discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge. 

In addition, the parties may file a joint letter brief regarding a challenge to a 

confidentiality designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so, including a challenge 

to the designation of a deposition transcript or any portions thereof. If, after submitting a joint 

letter brief, the Court allows that a motion may be filed, any motion brought pursuant to this 

provision must be accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that the movant has 

complied with the meet and confer requirements imposed by the preceding paragraph. The 

Court, in its discretion, may elect to refer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge. 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 8 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 9

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating 

Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose 

unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to 

sanctions. Unless the Designating Party has waived the confidentiality designation by failing to 

file a letter brief to retain confidentiality as described above, all parties shall continue to afford 

the material in question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party’s 

designation until the court rules on the challenge. 

7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL 

7.1 Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed 

or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this case only for 

prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this litigation. Such Protected Material may be 

disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the conditions described in this Order. 

When the litigation has been terminated, a Receiving Party must comply with the provisions of 

section 14 below (FINAL DISPOSITION). 

Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a location and 

in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons authorized under this Order. 

7.2 Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Unless otherwise 

ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may 

disclose any information or item designated “CONFIDENTIAL” only to: 

(a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record in this action, as well as 

employees of said Outside Counsel of Record to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the 

information for this litigation; 

(b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the 

Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have 

signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 

(c) Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party to whom 

disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment 

and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 9 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 10

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

(d) the court and its personnel; 

(e) court reporters and their staff, professional jury or trial consultants, and 

Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who 

have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 

(f) during their depositions, witnesses in the action who are (1) current 

employees of Producing Party, (2) current or former officers or directors of the Producing Party, 

(3) experts retained by the Producing Party, (4) witnesses designated to testify pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) by the Producing Party, (5) persons identified on the face of the document as 

an author or recipient, and/or (6) persons established to have, in the ordinary course of business, 

seen the Protected Material; and 

(g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a 

custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information. 

7.3 Disclosure of “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 

Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the 

Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any information or item designated 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” only to: 

(a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record in this action, as well as 

employees of said Outside Counsel of Record to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the 

information for this litigation; 

(b) Experts of the Receiving Party (1) to whom disclosure is reasonably 

necessary for this litigation, (2) who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be 

Bound” (Exhibit A), and (3) as to whom the procedures set forth in paragraph 7.4(a)(2), below, 

have been followed]; 

(c) the court and its personnel; 

(d) court reporters and their staff, professional jury or trial consultants, mock 

jurors, and Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation 

and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 

(e) during their depositions, witnesses in the action who are (1) current 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 10 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 11

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

employees of Producing Party, (2) current or former officers or directors of the Producing Party, 

(3) experts retained by the Producing Party, (4) witnesses designated to testify pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) by the Producing Party, (5) persons identified on the face of the document as 

an author or recipient, and/or (6) persons established to have, in the ordinary course of business, 

seen the Protected Material; and 

(f) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a 

custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information. 

7.4 Procedures for Approving or Objecting to Disclosure of “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items to Experts. 

(a) Unless otherwise ordered by the court or agreed to in writing by the 

Designating Party, a Party that seeks to disclose to an Expert (as defined in this Order) any 

information or item that has been designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to paragraph 7.3(c) first must make a written request to the Designating 

Party that (1) sets forth the full name of the Expert and the city and state of his or her primary 

residence, (2) attaches a copy of the Expert’s current resume, (3) identifies the Expert’s current 

employer(s), (4) identifies each person or entity from whom the Expert has received 

compensation or funding for work in his or her areas of expertise or to whom the expert has 

provided professional services, including in connection with a litigation, at any time during the 

preceding five years, and (5) identifies (by name and number of the case, filing date, and location 

of court) any litigation in connection with which the Expert has offered expert testimony, 

including through a declaration, report, or testimony at a deposition or trial, during the preceding 

five years. 

(b) A Party that makes a request and provides the information specified in the 

preceding respective paragraphs may disclose the subject Protected Material to the identified 

Expert unless, within 7 days of delivering the request, the Party receives a written objection from 

the Designating Party. Any such objection must set forth in detail the grounds on which it is 

based. The Party receiving such a written objection may not disclose the subject Protected 

Material until the objection has been resolved. 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 11 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 12

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

(c) A Party that receives a timely written objection must meet and confer with 

the Designating Party (through direct voice to voice dialogue) to try to resolve the matter by 

agreement within 7 days of the written objection. If no agreement is reached, the Party seeking to 

prevent the disclosure to the Expert must file a motion as provided in Civil Local Rule 7 (and in 

compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5, if applicable) within 7 days of the meet and confer. Any 

such motion must describe the circumstances with specificity, set forth in detail the reasons why 

the disclosure to the Expert is inappropriate, assess the risk of harm that the disclosure would 

entail, and suggest any additional means that could be used to reduce that risk. In addition, any 

such motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration describing the parties’ efforts to 

resolve the matter by agreement (i.e., the extent and the content of the meet and confer 

discussions). Failure to file a motion within the allotted time will constitute waiver of the 

objection to the disclosure. 

In any such proceeding, the Party opposing disclosure to the Expert shall bear the burden 

of proving that the risk of harm that the disclosure would entail (under the safeguards proposed) 

outweighs the Receiving Party’s need to disclose the Protected Material to its Expert. 

8. PROSECUTION BAR 

Absent written consent from the Producing Party, any individual who receives access to 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information shall not be involved 

in the prosecution of patents or patent applications relating to light-emitting II-VI and III-V 

semiconductor nanocrystals for applications in display technology, including without limitation 

the patents asserted in this action and any patent or application claiming priority to or otherwise 

related to the patents asserted in this action, before any foreign or domestic agency, including the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (“the Patent Office”). For purposes of this paragraph, 

“prosecution” includes directly or indirectly drafting, amending, advising, or otherwise affecting 

the scope or maintenance of patent claims. To avoid any doubt, “prosecution” as used in this 

paragraph does not include representing a party before a domestic or foreign agency (including, 

but not limited to, a reissue protest, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, or inter 

partes review (“IPR”)). This Prosecution Bar shall begin when access to “HIGHLY 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 12 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 13

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information is first received by the affected 

individual and shall end two (2) years after final termination of this action. 

9. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED PRODUCED IN OTHER 

LITIGATION 

If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation that compels 

disclosure of any information or items designated in this action as “CONFIDENTIAL” or 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” that Party must: 

(a) promptly notify in writing within 7 days of being served with such subpoena or 

court order the Designating Party. Such notification shall include a copy of the subpoena or court 

order; 

(b) promptly notify in writing within 7 days of being served with such subpoena or 

court order the party who caused the subpoena or order to issue in the other litigation that some 

or all of the material covered by the subpoena or order is subject to this Protective Order. Such 

notification shall include a copy of this Stipulated Protective Order; and 

(c) cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be pursued by the 

Designating Party whose Protected Material may be affected. 

If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party served with the 

subpoena or court order shall not produce any information designated in this action as 

“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” before a 

determination by the court from which the subpoena or order issued, unless the Party has 

obtained the Designating Party’s permission. The Designating Party shall bear the burden and 

expense of seeking protection in that court of its confidential material – and nothing in these 

provisions should be construed as authorizing or encouraging a Receiving Party in this action to 

disobey a lawful directive from another court. 

10. A NON-PARTY’S PROTECTED MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED IN THIS 

LITIGATION 

(a) The terms of this Order are also applicable to information produced by a NonParty in this action and designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. Such information produced by Non-Parties in connection with 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 13 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 14

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

this litigation is protected by the remedies and relief provided by this Order. Nothing in these 

provisions should be construed as prohibiting a Non-Party from seeking additional protections. 

(b) In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to produce a 

Non-Party’s confidential information in its possession, and the Party is subject to an agreement 

with the Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party’s confidential information, then the Party shall: 

1. promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-Party that 

some or all of the information requested is subject to a confidentiality agreement with a NonParty; 

2. promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of the Stipulated Protective 

Order in this litigation, the relevant discovery request(s), and a reasonably specific description of 

the information requested; and 

3. make the information requested available for inspection by the Non-Party. 

(c) If the Non-Party fails to object or seek a protective order from this court within 14 

days of receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Receiving Party may produce 

the Non-Party’s confidential information responsive to the discovery request. If the Non-Party 

timely seeks a protective order, the Receiving Party shall not produce any information in its 

possession or control that is subject to the confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a 

determination by the court. Absent a court order to the contrary, the Non-Party shall bear the 

burden and expense of seeking protection in this court of its Protected Material. 

11. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL 

If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed Protected 

Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this Stipulated Protective 

Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the Designating Party of the 

unauthorized disclosures within 3 days of learning of such unauthorized disclosure, (b) use its 

best efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected Material, (c) inform the person or 

persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order within 3 days 

of learning such information, and (d) request such person or persons to execute the 

“Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A within 3 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 14 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 15

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

days of learning such information. 

12. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED 

MATERIAL 

Inadvertent production of materials or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege, 

work-product immunity or any other applicable privilege or immunity shall not constitute a 

waiver of such privilege(s), provided that the provisions set forth herein are followed. 

Inadvertent production of materials or documents shall be handled as follows, without prejudice 

to the right of any party to apply to the Court for further protection or disclosure relating to 

discovery: 

a) Within 14 days of discovering that information produced in discovery should 

have been withheld on the basis of privilege or immunity, the Producing Party shall notify the 

Receiving Party, identifying the documents or information in question in a privilege log or other 

description that lists the privilege or immunity invoked and discloses the basis therefor. Upon 

receiving such notice, the Receiving Party shall within 7 days, return or destroy the materials or 

documents and all copies thereof and certify to the Producing Party that all copies thereof have 

been returned or destroyed. 

b) If the Receiving Party believes it has a good-faith basis for challenging the 

privilege claim, Outside Counsel of Record for the Receiving Party shall provide to Outside 

Counsel of Record for the Producing Party, within 7) days after receipt of the Producing Party’s 

request for return and privilege log, a written explanation of the good-faith basis for its belief 

that the inadvertently produced materials or documents are not privileged. 

c) Outside Counsel of Record for the Producing Party shall respond in writing to the 

timely challenge to the privilege or immunity claim by Outside Counsel of Record for the 

Receiving Party within seven (7) days from receipt of the challenge. In the event that the parties 

cannot agree as to the privilege or immunity status of the inadvertently produced materials or 

documents, the Receiving Party has 14 days from receipt of the Producing Party’s written 

response to the privilege challenge (or such other time as may be agreed between the Parties) to 

seek a determination by the Court of the claim of privilege or immunity and may present the 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 15 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 16

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

information to the Court under seal for a determination of the claim. In the event that the 

challenge to a claim of privilege comes before the Court, the Producing Party shall have the 

burden of proving that the produced materials or document are privileged and were inadvertently 

produced. 

d) The substance of such documents cannot be used to challenge the propriety of the 

asserted privilege immunity. 

13. MISCELLANEOUS 

13.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Order abridges the right of any person to 

seek its modification by the court in the future. 

13.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this Protective 

Order no Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to disclosing or producing any 

information or item on any ground not addressed in this Stipulated Protective Order. Similarly, 

no Party waives any right to object on any ground to use in evidence of any of the material 

covered by this Protective Order. 

13.3 Export Control. Disclosure of Protected Material shall be subject to all applicable 

laws and regulations relating to the export of technical data contained in such Protected Material, 

including the release of such technical data to foreign persons or nationals in the United States or 

elsewhere. The Producing Party shall be responsible for identifying any such controlled technical 

data, and the Receiving Party shall take measures necessary to ensure compliance. 

13.4 Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the Designating Party 

or a court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a Party may not file in 

the public record in this action any Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under seal any 

Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Protected Material may only be 

filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected 

Material at issue. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, a sealing order will issue only upon a 

request establishing that the Protected Material at issue is privileged, protectable as a trade 

secret, or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. If a Receiving Party's request to file 

Protected Material under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) is denied by the court, then 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 16 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 17

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

the Receiving Party may file the Protected Material in the public record pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(e)(2) unless otherwise instructed by the court. 

14. FINAL DISPOSITION 

Within 60 days after the final disposition of this action, as defined in paragraph 4, each 

Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such 

material. As used in this subdivision, “all Protected Material” includes all copies, abstracts, 

compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected 

Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must 

submit a written certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the 

Designating Party) by the 60-day deadline that (1) identifies all the Protected Material that was 

returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, 

abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or capturing any of the 

Protected Material. Notwithstanding this provision, Counsel are entitled to retain an archival 

copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, 

correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and 

consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such 

archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to this Protective 

Order as set forth in Section 4 (DURATION). 

 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 17 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 18

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 

DATED: August 26, 2016 /s/ Douglas E. Lumish 

Attorney for Plaintiffs Nanosys, Inc. and 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

DATED: August 26, 2016 /s/ James L. Day 

Attorney for Plaintiff The Regents of the 

University of California 

DATED: August 26, 2016 /s/ Michael J. Summersgill 

Attorney for Defendant QD Vision, Inc. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 26, 2016 _____________________________________ 

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 18 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 19

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

EXHIBIT A 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND 

I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of 

_________________ [print or type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have 

read in its entirety and understand the Stipulated Protective Order that was issued by the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California on ____________ in the case of 

Nanosys, Inc., The Regents of the University of California, and Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology v. QD Vision, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-1957-YGR (N.D. Cal.), I agree to comply with 

and to be bound by all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I understand and 

acknowledge that failure to so comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in the 

nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not disclose in any manner any information or 

item that is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order to any person or entity except in strict 

compliance with the provisions of this Order. 

I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated 

Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action. 

I hereby appoint __________________________ [print or type full name] of 

_______________________________________ [print or type full address and telephone 

number] as my California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any 

proceedings related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order. 

Date: _________________________________ 

City and State where sworn and signed: _________________________________ 

Printed name: ______________________________ 

[printed name] 

Signature: __________________________________ 

[signature] 

 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 19 of 20
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY 20

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-1957-YGR

ATTESTATION 

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained from the other signatories, which shall serve in lieu of their 

signatures. 

Dated: August 26, 2016 By /s/ Douglas E. Lumish 

 Douglas E. Lumish 

Case 4:16-cv-01957-YGR Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 20 of 20