Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00424/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00424-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C-10-424 JF (PVT)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

(JFEX1)

**E-Filed 6/11/10**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UPEK, INC., a Delaware corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

AUTHENTEC, INC., a Delaware corporation,

 Defendant.

Case No. 10-424-JF (PVT)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 1

SCHEDULE

[re: document no. 111]

AUTHENTEC, INC., a Delaware corporation,

 Counterclaimant,

v.

UPEK, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

 Counterdefendant.

Defendant/Counterclaimant AuthenTec, Inc. (“AuthenTec”) moves pursuant to Civil L.R.

72-2 for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Trumbull. Plaintiff/

Counterdefendant UPEK, Inc. (“UPEK”) has filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11. Portions of its Rule 11 motion were designated as “highly confidential – attorneys’

Case 5:10-cv-00424-JF Document 120 Filed 06/11/10 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

2

Case No. C-10-424 JF (PVT)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

(JFEX1)

eyes only” and filed under seal. On May 17, 2010, Judge Trumbull granted in part and denied in

part AuthenTec’s motion to designate as non-confidential portions of UPEK’s Rule 11 motion

(“May 17 Order”). AuthenTec contends that – to the extent that it left as confidential portions of

UPEK’s Rule 11 motion – the May 17 Order is clearly erroneous.

AuthenTec’s counterclaims allege that UPEK’s TCS4 and TCS5 devices infringe several

United States Patents. UPEK’s Rule 11 motion alleges that AuthenTec failed to conduct a

reasonable inquiry into the facts before filing its counterclaims. Essentially, UPEK contends that

simple reverse engineering and microscope and oscilloscope observations would have been

sufficient to inform AuthenTec that UPEK’s TCS4 and TCS5 devices cannot infringe certain

aspects of AuthenTec’s patents.

Judge Trumbull concluded that UPEK’s Rule 11 motion was a dispositive motion,

requiring UPEK to show “compelling reasons” to seal the redacted portions of the motion and its

supporting declarations. UPEK claims that the redacted information within its Rule 11 motion

falls into two categories: (1) technical details concerning why UPEK’s devices cannot perform

the image quality evaluations associated with certain limitations of AuthenTec’s patents and (2)

technical details concerning why UPEK’s TCS4 and TCS5 devices perform “anti-spoofing

techniques” that cannot possibly read on limitations of AuthenTec’s patents. Alan Kramer,

founder, board member, and former CEO of UPEK, filed a declaration in support of UPEK’s

motion to seal its Rule 11 motion. Kramer states that “anti-spoofing” is a security measure, the

mechanics of which have not been disclosed publicly in order to maintain their effectiveness. 

Kramer contends that while UPEK’s Rule 11 motion describes tests that are easily performed, the

technical details concerning why the tests produce certain results, how these results are produced,

and what the results mean are confidential.

While the Kramer declaration may sufficiently show compelling reasons for a high level

of confidentiality in the abstract, the declaration is not necessarily sufficient in the context of

UPEK’s Rule 11 motion. UPEK argues that the redacted portions of its motion would have been

revealed to AuthenTec through reasonable inquiry. At the same time, UPEK contends that the

redacted portions of its motion are subject to extensive efforts to maintain their confidentiality,

Case 5:10-cv-00424-JF Document 120 Filed 06/11/10 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

Case No. C-10-424 JF (PVT)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

(JFEX1)

suggesting that a competitor’s reasonable inquiry would not have revealed the internal

mechanisms of the TCS4 and TCS5 devices.

Pursuant to Civil L.R.. 72-2, the Court requests that UPEK respond to AuthenTec’s

motion. UPEK’s response, if any, should be filed on or before June 18, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: 6/11/ 2010 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00424-JF Document 120 Filed 06/11/10 Page 3 of 3