Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04244/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04244-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

STEIN & 

KAHAN LLP

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 

 Defendants’ Misc. Admin. Request 

To File Documents Under Seal 

Case No. C03-04244 MMC (JCS) 

ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP 

Vincent K. Yip (No. 170665) 

vyip@agsk.com 

Terry D. Garnett (No. 151212) 

tgarnett@agsk.com 

Peter J. Wied (No. 198475) 

pwied@agsk.com 

Maxwell A. Fox (No. 200016) 

mfox@agsk.com 

David R. Shraga (No. 229098) 

dshraga@agsk.com 

The Water Garden 

1620 26th Street 

Fourth Floor, North Tower 

Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 

Telephone: 310-907-1000 

Facsimile: 310-907-2000 

Attorneys for Defendants 

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHARP CORPORATION a.k.a. SHARP 

KABUSHIKI KAISHA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, AU 

OPTRONICS CORPORATION 

AMERICA, VIEWSONIC 

CORPORATION, BENQ 

CORPORATION, BENQ AMERICA, 

ENVISION PERIPHERALS INC. d/b/a 

AOC MONITORS, PROVIEW 

TECHNOLOGY, INC., SCEPTRE 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ACER, INC., 

AND ACER AMERICA 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C03-04244 MMC (JCS) 

DEFENDANTS’ MISCELLANEOUS 

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Civil L.R. 7-

10; Civil L.R. 79-5); ORDER THEREON 

 

Case 3:03-cv-04244-MMC Document 839 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 3
ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

STEIN & 

KAHAN LLP

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 

Defendants’ Misc. Admin. Request 

To File Documents Under Seal 

Case No. C03-04244 MMC (JCS)

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 27, 2005, defendants AU Optronics Corporation (“AUO”), AU Optronics 

Corporation America, ViewSonic Corporation, BenQ Corporation, BenQ America, Envision 

Peripherals Inc., Proview Technology, Inc., Sceptre Technologies, Inc., Acer, Inc., and Acer 

America Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) shall file, concurrently with this Miscellaneous 

Administrative Request, a Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment (the “Infringement MSJ Reply”), the Second Declaration of Sang N. Dang in Support 

of Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Second Dang Decl.”), Defendants’ Reply 

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re Defendant AU Optronics 

Corporation’s Non-U.S. Sales (the “Non-US Sales MSJ Reply”) and the Declaration of Maxwell 

A. Fox in Support of the Non-US Sales MSJ Reply (“Fox Decl.”).

Portions of the Infringement MSJ Reply, exhibits 35 through 39 to the Second 

Dang. Decl., portions of the Non-US Sales MSJ Reply, and exhibits A through E to the Fox Decl. 

contain highly confidential and proprietary information of Defendants. See Declaration of David 

R. Shraga in Support of Defendants’ MAR, ¶ 3. The release of such information to the public 

would cause harm to Defendants. See id. The parties have previously agreed to treat the parties’ 

confidential and proprietary information under the “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” provisions of the 

Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case on August 9, 2004. 

In compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5 of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California, Defendants wish to redact from the public version of their 

papers only those portions that contain the confidential material. 

Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request an order from the Court to allow 

them to file under seal the unredacted version of the Infringement MSJ Reply, the Second Dang 

Decl., the Non-US Sales MSJ Reply, and the Fox Decl. 

II. ARGUMENT

Under Local Rule 79-5, a document may only be filed under seal upon a showing 

of good cause. Portions of the Infringement MSJ Reply, exhibits 35 through 39 to the Second 

Dang Decl., portions of the Non-US Sales MSJ Reply, and exhibits A through E to the Fox Decl. 

Case 3:03-cv-04244-MMC Document 839 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 3
ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

STEIN & 

KAHAN LLP

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 

Defendants’ Misc. Admin. Request 

To File Documents Under Seal 

Case No. C03-04244 MMC (JCS)

contain information that is highly confidential and proprietary to Defendants. The release of such 

information to the public would cause harm to Defendants. 

Accordingly, good cause exists to seal references to information that is 

confidential and proprietary to Defendants. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter an 

order allowing it to file under seal the unredacted versions of the Reply Brief in Support of 

Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Second Declaration of Sang N. Dang in 

Support of Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendants’ Reply Memorandum 

in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re Defendant AU Optronics Corporation’s 

Non-U.S. Sales, and the Declaration of Maxwell A. Fox in Support of Defendants’ Reply 

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re Defendant AU Optronics 

Corporation’s Non-U.S. Sales.

DATED: May 27, 2005 ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP 

By __/s/_________________________________

David R. Shraga 

Attorneys for Defendants 

AU Optronics Corporation, et al. 

 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 1, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:03-cv-04244-MMC Document 839 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 of 3