Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06371/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06371-11/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ON SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06371-BLF 

OMNIBUS ORDER ON SEALING 

MOTIONS

[Re: ECF 220, 223, 234, 237]

Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their 

briefing and exhibits in connection with their motions for summary judgment. ECF 220, 223, 234, 

237. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART 

with prejudice, and DENIED IN PART without prejudice. 

The Court wishes to clarify briefly its order regarding proposed orders for motions to seal 

(ECF 227). For supporting declarations submitted under Rule 79-5(e), the declaration must still 

include written paragraphs describing how public disclosure of the information will cause harm to 

the designating party. Inclusion of this information in the table alone is insufficient. The table 

must cite to the relevant paragraph in the declaration for support and may summarize what that

paragraph says. Averments that “public disclosure of the information will cause harm to [party]” 

are insufficient.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. 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 

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 11
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Parties seeking to seal briefs 

relating to motions for summary judgment must meet the compelling reasons standard.

Parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. 

L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), 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.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only 

of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. 

L.R. 79-5(d) requiresthe submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to 

seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that 

is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that 

indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been 

omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as 

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s (“PI”) and Defendants’ (“ON”) sealing motions and the 

declarations of the designating parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the 

parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. 

The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below. 

A. ECF 220 (ON’s motion re MSJ and exhibits)

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 11
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ECF

No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Result Reasoning

220-4 Motion for 

Summary 

Judgment

Highlighted Portions 

at 2:17, 2:19-3:6, 3:8-

7:20, and 7:22-8:-15

DENIED PI, the designating party, 

does not seek to file this 

document under seal. See 

Headley Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 231.

220-6 Exhibit B Highlighted Portions 

at 5:13-25 and 

241:1-25 

DENIED PI, the designating party, 

does not seek to file this 

document under seal. See 

Headley Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 231.

220-7 Exhibit C Entire Exhibit DENIED PI, the designating party, 

does not seek to file this 

document under seal. See 

Headley Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 231.

220-9 Exhibit E Highlighted Portions 

at 9:19-25, 

26:2-27:25, 

33:1-35:25, and

102:1-103:25

DENIED PI, the designating party, 

does not seek to file this 

document under seal. See 

Headley Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 231.

220-11 Exhibit G Highlighted Portions 

at 13:15-25 and 

260:1-268:25

DENIED 

except as to 

13:19–20

The portion sought to be 

sealed contains the home 

address of one of PI’s 

employees. Compelling 

reasons exist to protect the 

employee’s privacy. 

As to the remainder, PI, the 

designating party, does not 

seek to file this document 

under seal. See Headley 

Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 231.

220-13 Exhibit V Highlighted Portions 

at 6–10, 12, and 13

GRANTED The highlighted portions 

include descriptions of ON’s 

highly confidential circuit 

schematics. See Fulghum 

Decl. ¶¶ 3–4, ECF 220-1. 

Public disclosure of this 

information could cause 

competitive harm to ON. Id. 

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 11
4

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

220-15 Exhibit W Highlighted Portions 

on pp. 6, 7, and 9–11 GRANTED The highlighted portions include descriptions of ON’s 

confidential circuit 

schematics. See Fulghum 

Decl. ¶¶ 3–4. Public 

disclosure of this 

information could cause 

competitive harm to ON. Id. 

B. ECF 223 (PI’s motion re MSJ and exhibits)

ECF 

No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Result Reasoning

223-4 PI’s Motion 

for 

Summary 

Judgment 

and Motion 

to Strike 

Expert 

Opinions

Highlighted 

portions at 

11:14-24, 14:5-

16, 14:19-22, 

18:15-16, 

18:17-22, 

18:23-19:2, 

19:5-6, 19:14-

15, 20:5-7, 

21:8-10, and 

21:25-28.

GRANTED 

as to all 

highlighted 

portions 

except 19:14-

15 and 

21:25-28

Contains excerpts of PI’s 

confidential internal schematics 

(11:14-24) and deposition testimony 

and excerpts from expert reports 

regarding the detailed functionality 

of PI’s chips and unreleased products 

(14:5-16, 14:19-22, 18:15-16, 18:17-

22, 18:23-19:2, 19:5-6, 20:5-7, 21:8-

10). See Headley Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 

223-1. Public disclosure of this 

information could cause competitive 

harm to PI. Id. 

Denied as to remainder (19:14-15; 

21:25-28). ON, the designating party, 

does not seek to file this document 

under seal. See Fulghum Decl. ¶ 2, 

ECF 230.

223-5 Ex. 24 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED This excerpt from PI’s schematics 

contains confidential details 

regarding the inner workings of PI’s 

SMP3 chip products. See Headley 

Decl. ¶¶ 3–4. Public disclosure of 

this information could cause 

competitive harm to PI. Id.

223-6 Ex. 26 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED This excerpt contains confidential 

details regarding the inner workings 

of PI’s SMP3 chip products, 

including circuit schematics that 

were filed herewith as Exhibit 24. 

See Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 11
5

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

ECF 

No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Result Reasoning

223-7 Ex. 27 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED This excerpt contains confidential 

details regarding the inner workings 

of PI’s SMP3 chip products, 

including circuit schematics that 

were filed herewith as Exhibit 24. 

See Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

223-8 Ex. 28 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED This excerpt contains confidential 

details regarding the inner workings 

of PI’s SMP3 chip products, 

including circuit schematics that 

were filed herewith as Exhibit 24. 

See Headey Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

223-9 Ex. 33 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED This excerpt discusses the detailed 

inner workings of PI’s accused 

products, which is information PI 

maintains as highly confidential and 

proprietary in the ordinary course of 

business. See Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6. 

Public disclosure of this information 

could cause competitive harm to PI. 

Id.

223-10 Ex. 34 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Contains ON’s detailed

characterizations of the inner 

workings of PI’s accused products,

information PI maintains as highly 

confidential and proprietary in the

ordinary course of business. See

Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

223-11 Ex. 35 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Contains ON’s detailed

characterizations of the inner 

workings of PI’s accused products,

information PI maintains as highly 

confidential and proprietary in the

ordinary course of business. See

Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 11
6

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

ECF 

No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Result Reasoning

223-12 Ex. 36 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Cites and explains PI’s detailed 

internal product schematics and other 

materials regarding the inner 

workings of PI’s integrated circuit 

products. See Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8. 

Public disclosure of this information 

could cause competitive harm to PI. 

Id.

223-13 Ex. 43 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Contains ON’s detailed

characterizations of the inner 

workings of PI’s accused products,

information PI maintains as highly 

confidential and proprietary in the

ordinary course of business. See

Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

223-14 Ex. 44 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Cites and explains PI’s detailed 

product schematics and other 

materials regarding the inner 

workings of PI’s integrated circuit 

products. See Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8. 

Public disclosure of this information 

could cause competitive harm to PI. 

Id.

223-15 Ex. 45 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED This excerpt from the deposition of 

PI engineer Mike Matthews 

discusses the detailed inner workings 

of PI’s accused products, which is 

information PI maintains as highly 

confidential and proprietary in the 

ordinary course of business. See

Headley Decl. ¶¶ 9. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

223-16 Ex. 47 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Contains ON’s detailed

characterizations of the inner 

workings of PI’s accused products,

information PI maintains as highly 

confidential and proprietary in the

ordinary course of business. See

Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 6 of 11
7

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

ECF 

No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Result Reasoning

223-17 Ex. 48 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Contains ON’s detailed

characterizations of the inner 

workings of PI’s accused products,

information PI maintains as highly 

confidential and proprietary in the

ordinary course of business. See

Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

223-18 Ex. 49 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Contains ON’s detailed

characterizations of the inner 

workings of PI’s accused products,

information PI maintains as highly 

confidential and proprietary in the

ordinary course of business. See

Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

223-19 Ex. 50 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED These excerpts from the deposition 

of PI engineer and CEO Balu 

Balakrishnan discuss the detailed 

inner workings of PI’s accused 

products, which is information PI 

maintains as highly confidential and 

proprietary in the ordinary course of 

business. See Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 

10. Public disclosure of this 

information could cause competitive 

harm to PI. Id.

223-20 Ex. 51 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Cites and explains PI’s detailed 

internal product schematics and other 

materials regarding the inner 

workings of PI’s integrated circuit 

products. See Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8. 

Public disclosure of this information 

could cause competitive harm to PI. 

Id.

223-21 Ex. 52 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Cites and explains PI’s detailed 

internal product schematics and other 

materials regarding the inner 

workings of PI’s integrated circuit 

products. See Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8. 

Public disclosure of this information 

could cause competitive harm to PI. 

Id.

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 7 of 11
8

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

ECF 

No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Result Reasoning

223-22 Ex. 53 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Cites and explains PI’s detailed 

internal product schematics and other 

materials regarding the inner 

workings of PI’s integrated circuit 

products. See Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8. 

Public disclosure of this information 

could cause competitive harm to PI. 

Id.

223-23 Ex. 54 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Contains ON’s detailed

characterizations of the inner 

workings of PI’s accused products,

information PI maintains as highly 

confidential and proprietary in the

ordinary course of business. See

Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7. Public 

disclosure of this information could 

cause competitive harm to PI. Id.

223-24 Ex. 56 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit DENIED ON, the designating party, does not 

seek to file this document under seal. 

See Fulghum Decl. ¶ 2.

223-25 Ex. 57 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit DENIED 

WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

The request is not narrowly tailored. 

Likewise, ON does not seek to seal 

any portion of this document, and PI 

does not inform the Court which 

specific portions it seeks to seal 

despite ON’s lack of designation.

223-26 Ex. 58 to 

Headley 

Dec ISO 

PI’s Motion

Entire exhibit GRANTED Cites and explains PI’s detailed 

internal product schematics and other 

materials regarding the inner 

workings of PI’s integrated circuit 

products. See Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8. 

Public disclosure of this information 

could cause competitive harm to PI. 

Id.

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 8 of 11
9

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

C. ECF 234 (ON’s motion re Opposition and exhibits)

ECF

No. Document Portion(s) to 

Seal

Result Reasoning

234-3

Motion for 

Summary 

Judgment

Highlighted 

Portions at 

9:25-26

GRANTED The highlighted portion contains 

confidential information 

contained in a settlement 

agreement between PI and thirdparty Motorola Inc. See Headley 

Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 240.

234-3

Motion for 

Summary 

Judgment

Highlighted 

Portions at 

15:2-8, 15:12-

16, and 17:20-

18:2

DENIED

PI, the designating party, does 

not seek to file this document 

under seal. See Headley Decl. ¶ 

2.

234-4 Exhibit A Entire Exhibit GRANTED as to

Exhibit 1 (R129-

R139); Exhibit 2 

(R164-R168); 

Exhibit 8 (R90-

R95); and ¶¶ 5–7

DENIED as to 

remainder.

The delineated portions of the 

Madisetti declaration contain

detailed excerpts from PI’s 

product schematics and

discussions of the highly 

confidential inner workings of 

PI’s accused products, the release 

of which would cause 

competitive harm to PI. See 

Headley Decl. ¶ 2.

PI, the designating party, does 

not seek to file the remainder of 

the document under seal. See 

Headley Decl. ¶ 2.

234-5 Exhibit G Entire Exhibit GRANTED The highlighted portion contains 

confidential information 

contained in a settlement 

agreement between PI and thirdparty Motorola Inc. See Headley 

Decl. ¶ 2.

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 9 of 11
10

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

D. ECF 237 (PI’s motion re Opposition and exhibits)

ECF 

No.

Document Portion(s) to 

Seal

Designating 

Party

Reasoning

237-4 Kelley Declaration 

in Support of PI’s 

Opposition

Pages 4:8-10, 

4:21-5:1, and 

7:17-21 and 

Attachment D

GRANTED 

as to 

Attachment 

D.

Denied as to 

remainder.

Attachment D contains 

information regarding ON’s 

accused products and their 

detailed schematics and 

functionality. See Fulghum 

Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 239. Public 

disclosure of this 

information would cause 

harm to ON. Id.

ON, the designating party, 

does not seek to file the 

remainder of the document 

under seal. See Fulghum 

Decl. ¶ 2.

237-5 Ex. 1 to the 

Headley Declaration

Entire exhibit GRANTED Contains information 

regarding ON’s accused 

products and their detailed 

schematics and 

functionality. See Fulghum 

Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 239. Public 

disclosure of this 

information would cause 

harm to ON. Id.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 220, 223, 234, 237 are GRANTED 

IN PART, DENIED IN PART with prejudice, and DENIED IN PART without prejudice. For any 

document that has been denied sealing without prejudice, the designating party may renew its 

request for sealing by submitting more narrowly tailored redactions and supporting declaration(s). 

Any renewed request must be filed on or before June 17, 2019. If no renewed request is filed by 

that date, the sealing request will be denied with prejudice. 

For any request that has been denied with prejudice and the properly unredacted or lesser 

redacted document consistent with this order has not been filed, the submitting party must file the 

unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no 

later than 10 days from the filing of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). 

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 10 of 11
11

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 251 Filed 06/03/19 Page 11 of 11