Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-128/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

DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON

FAIRCHILD’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER

SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS OPPOSITION

TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE GU-YEON

WEI, 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 B and

D - I to the Declaration of Christina A. Ondrick (“Ondrick Declaration”) filed in support of

“Fairchild’s Opposition to Power Integrations’ Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony of Dr.

Wei,” as well as portions of Fairchild’s opposition that refer to said exhibits. 

Exhibits B, D, E, H, and I have been designated confidential by both parties, while

Exhibits F and G have been designated confidential by Fairchild only. In accordance with

the requirements of the Local Rules of this district, Fairchild has submitted a declaration in

support of sealing all said exhibits and the redacted portions of the opposition, see Civil L.

R. 79-5(d) (providing motion to file document under seal must be “accompanied by . . . [a]

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 762 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 3
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

1

See, e.g., Ondrick Decl. Ex. B (Wei Deposition) at 22-53 (discussing expert’s

familiarity with power supply industry and his approach to determining availability of noninfringing alternatives), 66-89 (discussing expert’s opinion as to extent of innovation in light

of prior art); Ex. F (Yang Deposition) at 66-68, 82-83, 144-49 (discussing various patents

other than patents at issue); Ex. G at 154-65 (discussing value of infringing product

features that practice ‘908 patent and datasheets for products manufactured by neither

party). 

2

declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions

thereof, are sealable”), and plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) has

submitted a responsive declaration in support of sealing Exhibits B, D, E, H, and I, and the

related portions of the opposition, see 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.

“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). The request “must be narrowly tailored

to seek sealing only of sealable material.” See id.

To the extent the administrative motion seeks permission to seal the entirety of

Exhibits D, E, H, and I to the Ondrick Declaration and the related portions of the opposition,

the Court finds good cause has been shown, and the motion is hereby GRANTED. The

exhibits shall remain filed under seal.

According to Fairchild, Exhibits B, F, and G contain “both parties’ technical product

design, sales, revenue, strategic marketing and product status information.” (See Ondrick

Decl. ¶ 12.) Contrary to Fairchild’s characterization, however, Exhibits B, F, and G appear

to contain primarily non-sealable material.1

In lieu of denial, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on the administrative motion to the

extent it seeks to seal Exhibits B, F, and G and related portions of the opposition, pending

each party’s filing, by November 9, 2015, a supplemental response that identifies, with

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 762 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 3
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

specificity, the portions of the exhibits and opposition that contain such party’s confidential

information. Pending the Court’s ruling on the parties’ supplemental responses, said

exhibits and the unredacted opposition will remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 762 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 3