Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-03724/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-03724-100/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 and 

ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.,

Intervenors.

________________________________/

No. C 10-3724 CW

ORDER ON 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

(Docket No. 1360)

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

 

No. C 10-5254 CW

(Docket No. 603)

Before the Court is Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet Innovations, 

LLC’s (USEI) administrative motion to seal (Case No. 10-3724, 

Docket No. 1360; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 603).

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under 

seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be 

sealed “are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise 

entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). Any 

sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1365 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

material. Id. The request must be supported by the designating 

party’s declaration establishing that the information is sealable. 

Id. subsection (d).

“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). In considering a sealing 

request, the Court begins with “a strong presumption of access 

[as] the starting point.” Id. 

A party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive 

motion bears the burden of establishing “compelling reasons 

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” 

Id. at 1178-79. This is because dispositive motions represent

“the heart of the interest in ensuring the public’s understanding 

of the judicial process and of significant public events.” Id.

at 1179. 

Case No. 

10-3724

Docket No. 

1360

Case No. 

10-5254

Docket No. 

603

USEI seeks leave to file under seal certain exhibits 

to its Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s 

November 7, 2014 Summary Judgment Order.

1. Exhibit B to the Declaration of Robert J. Leonard 

in support of USEI’s Motion to Alter or Amend the 

Court’s November 7, 2014 Summary Judgment Order 

(Leonard Declaration). Exhibit B comprises

excerpts of the Corrected Expert Report regarding 

infringement of the patents-in-suit by Intervenor 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1365 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Intel, prepared by Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher,

USEI’s infringement expert. The motion is 

GRANTED because USEI has limited its request to 

excerpts containing confidential source code. 

2. Exhibit C to the Leonard Declaration. Exhibit C 

comprises an excerpt of the May 29, 2014 

Deposition of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher, USEI’s 

infringement expert. There does not appear to be 

any sealable information in this document. 

Accordingly, USEI’s request for leave to file 

this document under seal is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the reason set forth above, USEI’s Administrative Motion 

to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1360; Case No. 

10-5254, Docket No. 603) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

For the document for which the motion is GRANTED, within four days 

of the date of this Order, USEI shall electronically file it under 

seal. For the document for which the motion is DENIED, the denial 

is without prejudice. USEI must submit, within seven days of the 

date of this Order, a revised declaration justifying why the 

document is sealable. Otherwise, USEI must file the document in 

the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 3, 2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1365 Filed 02/03/15 Page 3 of 3