Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-05254/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-05254-55/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 Nos. 1342

and 1344)

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

 

No. C 10-5254 CW

(Docket No. 591)

Before the Court is Intervenor Marvell Semiconductors, Inc.’s 

(MSI) administrative motion to seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 

1342) and Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC’s (USEI) 

administrative motion to seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1344; 

Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 591).

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 

Case 4:10-cv-05254-CW Document 598 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 7
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

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

sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable 

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. 

The strong presumption in favor of access does not apply with 

equal force to non-dispositive motions, which may be only 

“tangentially related” to the underlying cause of action. Id.

at 1179-80. A party seeking to seal materials related to nondispositive motions must show good cause by making a 

“particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will 

result” should the information be disclosed. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c). “[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential harm” will 

not suffice. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

Case 4:10-cv-05254-CW Document 598 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 7
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

1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003). These different standards are applied 

as relevant to the documents addressed below.

Case No. 

10-3724, 

Docket No. 

1342

In its December 19, 2014 Order, the Court denied MSI’s 

motion to seal Exhibits K.1-K.3 of Exhibit 15 to the 

Declaration of Sean Nation in Support of USEI’s Notice 

of Supplemental Authority and Motion to Supplement 

(Nation Declaration). The Court held that MSI’s 

request was not narrowly tailored as required by Civil 

Local Rule 79-5(b). The Court permitted MSI to 

resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored request 

within seven days of the date of that Order.

In the present motion, again MSI seeks leave to file 

under seal an unredacted version of Exhibits K.1-K.3 

of Exhibit 15 to the Nation Declaration. The document 

contains highly specific and recent financial 

information regarding sales of MSI products. The 

motion is GRANTED because MSI limits the redacted 

information to confidential financial and sales 

information. 

Case No. 

10-3724, 

Docket No. 

1344

Case No. 

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 A to the Declaration of Robert J. 

Leonard in support of USEI’s Motion to Alter 

or Amend the Court’s November 7, 2014 Summary 

Case 4:10-cv-05254-CW Document 598 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10-5424, 

Docket No. 

591

Judgment Order (Leonard Declaration). 

Exhibit A is a Joint Defense and 

Confidentiality Agreement between Intel 

Corporation and Texas Instruments in the 

cases U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, 

Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 5:10-CV-03724, 

and U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Texas 

Instruments, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:11-cv491-LED-JDL. Intervenor Intel has filed a 

declaration stating that the document is 

sealable, in its entirety, because it 

contains information not available to the 

public. Specifically, Intel states that the 

document contains the terms of a 

confidentiality agreement with regard to 

shared information between Defendants and 

Intervenors. Upon reviewing the document, 

the Court finds that there does not appear to 

be any sealable information in the document. 

Accordingly, USEI’s motion for leave to file 

this document under seal is DENIED.

2. Exhibit L to the Leonard Declaration. 

Exhibit L is an excerpt of the Rebuttal 

Expert Report of Dr. Leonard Forys regarding 

the non-infringement of the patents-in-suit. 

USEI seeks to file under seal the entire 

excerpt. USEI states that this document has 

Case 4:10-cv-05254-CW Document 598 Filed 01/12/15 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

been designated highly confidential by one or 

more of the parties in this litigation; 

however, no party has filed a declaration 

stating why this excerpt is sealable as 

required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). 

Furthermore, there does not appear to be any 

sealable information in the excerpt. The 

excerpt refers only to the Court’s claim 

construction orders, which are available in 

the public record. Accordingly, USEI’s 

motion for leave to file this document under 

seal is DENIED.

3. Exhibit M to the Leonard Declaration. 

Exhibit M is an excerpt of the transcript of 

the July 9, 2014 videotaped deposition of Dr. 

Forys on behalf of USEI. USEI seeks to file 

under seal the entire excerpt. USEI states 

that this document has been designated highly 

confidential by one or more of the parties in 

this litigation; however, no party has filed 

a declaration stating why this excerpt is 

sealable as required by Civil Local Rule 79-

5(e). Furthermore, there does not appear to 

be any sealable information in the excerpt. 

The excerpt refers to the Court’s claim 

construction and page numbers of the rebuttal 

report, but does not contain any source code 

Case 4:10-cv-05254-CW Document 598 Filed 01/12/15 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

or other sealable information. Accordingly, 

USEI’s motion for leave to file this document 

under seal is DENIED.

4. Exhibit O to the Leonard Declaration. 

Exhibit O is an excerpt of the transcript of 

the July 22, 2014 videotaped deposition of 

Dr. Ian Crawford. USEI states that this 

document has been designated highly 

confidential by one or more of the parties in 

this litigation; however, no party has filed 

a declaration stating why this excerpt is 

sealable as required by Civil Local Rule 79-

5(e). Accordingly, USEI’s motion for leave 

to file this document under seal is DENIED. 

Thus, USEI’s administrative motion for leave to file 

under seal is DENIED (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 

1344; Case No. 10-5424, Docket No. 591). 

CONCLUSION

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

to File Under Seal (Docket No. 1342) is GRANTED. Accordingly, 

within four days of the date of this Order, MSI shall 

electronically file under seal an unredacted version of this 

document, and shall file a redacted version in the public record. 

USEI’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-

3724, Docket No. 1344; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 591) is 

DENIED. The denial is without prejudice. USEI, or the 

designating party, must submit, within seven days, a revised 

Case 4:10-cv-05254-CW Document 598 Filed 01/12/15 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

declaration remedying the deficiencies noted above. If the 

designating party does not file a declaration justify sealing, the 

document must be filed in the public record. If the designating 

party does file a declaration justifying sealing, USEI may refile 

the motion to seal and the Court will decide if the deficiencies 

noted above have been remedied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 12, 2015

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-05254-CW Document 598 Filed 01/12/15 Page 7 of 7