Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04794/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04794-5/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-04794-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 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

ALTERA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO.KG,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-04794-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 59

Before the Court is an administrative motion to seal a patent purchase agreement and 

related documents, filed in connection with Defendant Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG’s motion 

to dismiss. ECF No. 59 (“Motion”). The Court previously denied an administrative motion to seal 

the same documents that are now the subject of the instant Motion. See ECF No. 56 (Order 

denying motion to seal).

“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).

Case 5:14-cv-04794-LHK Document 64 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-04794-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 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

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

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).

Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of 

court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has 

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] 

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is 

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) 

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the 

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that 

sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

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 

Case 5:14-cv-04794-LHK Document 64 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-04794-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 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

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 Motion as follows:

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling

59 59-4 Certain portions of Exhibit K to 

the Declaration of Alessa Phang 

in Support of Altera’s Amended 

Opposition

GRANTED as to the proposed 

redactions on Page 2, § 2.1;

Page 11, § 2.1; Page 27; and 

Page 39. Otherwise DENIED 

WITH PREJUDICE because 

the material sought to be sealed 

is not sealable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04794-LHK Document 64 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 3