Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01531/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01531-0/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

1

 In light of Defendants’ amended answer, and in anticipation of Plaintiff filing an

amended reply to Defendants’ amended answer, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s counter-counterclaims (Doc. # 51) as moot. Although the Court is not

aware of any provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would permit the filing

of counter-counterclaims in lieu of a motion to amend the complaint, the Court need not

reach this issue because Defendants’ amended answer moots the motion to dismiss.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc., a Delaware

corporation, 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

vs.

Avago Technologies Limited, a Singapore

corporation; Avago Technologies U.S.,

Inc., a Delaware corporation, Avago

Technologies Wireless IP (Singapore) Pte.,

Ltd., a Singapore corporation, 

Defendants/CounterClaimants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1531-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal Its Amended Answer,

Affirmative Defenses, And Counterclaims (Doc. # 79).1

 For the reasons that follow, the

Court grants Defendants’ motion.

Historically, the public has a right to inspect judicial documents and records. Nixon

v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). However, such a right is not absolute.

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 87 Filed 03/16/10 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

 This is especially true considering Defendants’ initial answer set forth the pertinent

basis for its claims apart from the trade secrets, see Doc. # 21, as does Defendants’ redacted

amended answer filed at Doc. # 85.

- 2 -

Nevertheless, there is a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial records. A party

seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by either

meeting the “compelling reasons” standard if the record is a dispositive pleading, or the

“good cause” standard if the record is a non-dispositive pleading. Kamakana v. City &

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006).

In this case, Defendants are seeking to have their answer sealed. The Court need not

determine whether this pleading is subject to the compelling reasons standard or the lesser

good cause standard, as Defendants have shown compelling reasons for sealing their answer.

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure

and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle

for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon,

435 U.S. at 598) (emphasis added). 

Defendants aver that their answer contains numerous citations of “highly confidential

and trade secret information.” (Doc. # 79 at p. 4.) As the United State Supreme Court noted,

a recognized exception to the right to inspect judicial records are “sources of business

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

Defendants have included various diagrams and other details in their answer, which if

released to the general public, would have the effect of infringing upon their trade secrets.

Moreover, the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process will not be harmed, as

the pertinent factual and legal issue are ascertainable apart from the sealed answer.2

 The

Court agrees that the protection of trade secrets contained in Defendants’ answer constitutes

compelling reasons such that the Court will seal Defendants’ answer.

Accordingly,

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 87 Filed 03/16/10 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal Its Amended Answer, Affirmative

Defenses, And Counterclaims (Doc. # 79) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file, under seal,

Defendants’ Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, currently lodged

at Doc. # 80.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

Antitrust Counter-Counterclaims (Doc. # 51) is denied as moot, with leave to re-file if

necessary once Plaintiff files its amended reply to Defendants’ amended answer, or if

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend its complaint to incorporate its antitrust claims.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED vacating oral argument current scheduled for Monday,

April 19, 2010, at 11:00 AM.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 87 Filed 03/16/10 Page 3 of 3