Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063-54/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

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. et al.,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 05-4063 CW

ORDER DIRECTING TESSERA

TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT

On April 16, 2008, the Court granted Tessera’s motion to file

under seal Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Gregory S. Bishop, dated

February 14, 2008, filed in support of Tessera’s opposition to the

ST Defendants’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction. 

However, because Tessera had not filed a public redacted version of

the document under the correct title, the Court ordered Tessera as

follows:

Tessera must lodge with the clerk the unredacted version

of the exhibit under the title, “Exhibit 1 to the

Declaration of Gregory S. Bishop of February 14, 2008 in

Support of Tessera’s Opposition to the ST Defendants’

Renewed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Docket No.

753).” The clerk shall file this document under seal. 

Tessera must electronically file the public redacted

version of the same document using the same title.

Docket No. 817 at 2.

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 831 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Tessera filed the exhibit under seal using the correct title. 

However, Tessera did not comply with the Court’s instruction to

file the redacted version of the same document in the public record

using the same title. Instead, Tessera unnecessarily filed another

declaration establishing that the document is sealable and attached

the document as an exhibit to that declaration. This defeats the

purpose of filing the document in the public record under the

correct title: to enable it to be located by someone searching for

Exhibit 1 to the Bishop Declaration of February 14, 2008, which was

specifically referenced in the Court’s order denying the ST

Defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Tessera is again ordered to file electronically the public

redacted version of the document using the title, “Exhibit 1 to the

Declaration of Gregory S. Bishop of February 14, 2008 in Support of

Tessera’s Opposition to the ST Defendants’ Renewed Motion for a

Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 753).”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4/22/08

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 831 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 2