Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02868/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02868-9/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

ALTERA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACT XPP TECHNOLOGIES, AG,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02868-JD 

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 58, 72, 79, 88, 106, 205

This order resolves the pending administrative motions to file documents under seal in this 

case. One of the motions, filed at Dkt. No. 58, is associated with a motion that has since been 

withdrawn, and is therefore moot. See Notice of Withdrawal of Motion, Dkt. No. 66. Another, 

filed at Dkt. No. 106, involved a document that the Court had previously given permission to be 

filed under seal, see Dkt. No. 105, and is therefore granted. The Court rules on the remaining 

motions, filed at Dkt. Nos. 55, 72, 79, 88, and 205, as set forth below.

I. GOVERNING STANDARD

In our circuit, in evaluating a motion to seal, two different standards apply depending on 

whether the request is being made in connection with a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive 

motion.

For dispositive motions, the historic, “strong presumption of access to judicial records”

fully applies, and a party seeking sealing must establish “compelling reasons” to overcome that 

presumption. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

This standard presents a “high threshold,” and “a ‘good cause’ showing will not, without more,

satisfy” it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). When ordering sealing in this context, the district 

court must also “articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar 

Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).

The non-dispositive motion context is different. There, “the usual presumption of the 

public’s right of access is rebutted,” the “public has less of a need for access to court records 

Case 3:14-cv-02868-JD Document 219 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 8
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

attached only to non-dispositive motions,” and the “public policies that support the right of 

access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to nondispositive materials.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (citations omitted). Therefore, in that 

context, materials may be sealed so long as the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized 

showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180 

(quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138). In either case, however, “[a]n unsupported assertion of ‘unfair 

advantage’ to competitors without explaining ‘how a competitor would use th[e] information to 

obtain an unfair advantage’ is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 

WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 5:12-cv003305-LHK, 2012 WL 6202719, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)).

In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties 

requesting sealing must also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including that rule’s 

requirement that the request must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law,” i.e., is 

“sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek 

sealing only of sealable material.” Id.

II. DISCUSSION

Each of the pending motions is associated with non-dispositive motions, so the “good 

cause” standard applies.

A. PACT’s January 8, 2015, Motion (Dkt. No. 55)

PACT’s administrative motion to seal seeks to seal portions of its motion for leave to 

amend its infringement contentions, as well as portions of the exhibits, based on the fact that 

Altera designated the material “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” or 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” under the protective order in this case. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Altera submitted a declaration seeking to establish that the 

material in question is sealable. See Declaration of Adela Gotz, Dkt. No. 64. The Court rules as 

follows:

Case 3:14-cv-02868-JD Document 219 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 8
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

Document Portions to Be Filed 

Under Seal

Reason Material is 

Sealable

Ruling

PACT’s Motion 

for Leave to 

Amend its 

Infringement 

Contentions

As indicated in the public 

redacted version of PACT’s 

Motion for Leave to 

Amend its Infringement 

Contentions, line 6 of page 

4.

Refers to sealable 

material from 

exhibits.

Granted.

Exhibit A to 

PACT’s Motion 

for Leave to 

Amend its 

Infringement 

Contentions

As indicated in the public 

redacted version of Exhibit 

A attached to the 

Declaration of Kristen E. 

Lovin, portions of pages: 

37-45; 299-308; 480-488; 

599-608; 626-630; 633-

635; 638-642; 703-704; 

706-710; 749-750; 752-

755; 791-800; 817-819; 

823-827; 846-847; 877-

878; 884-887; 927-935; 

955-957; 962-966; 1045-

1054; 1077-1081; 1098-

1102; 1133-1136; 1150-

1158; 1170-1171; 1181-

1189; 1235; 1248-1256; 

1269-1270; 1281-1282; 

1292-1293; 1304-1307; 

1319;1365-1366; 1376-

1377; 1381-1382; 1398-

1399; 1434-1444; 1458-

1462; 1469-1473; 1503-

1505; 1521-1522; 1527-

1536; 1562-1563; 1576; 

1584-1585; 1590-1591; 

1603-1605; 1614; 1651-

1660; 1677-1681; 1689-

1693; 1720-1723; 1743; 

1751-1759; 1786-1787; 

1820-1829; 1832-1838; 

1894-1899; 1949-1959; 

1961-1967; 2029-2035; 

2076-2086; 2088-2094; 

2163-2169; 2187-2188; 

2244-2245; 2250; 2270; 

2272-2276; 2355-2356; 

2366; 2392-2395; 2443-

2444; 2454; 2484-2487; 

2550-2551; 2556; 2585; 

2588-2592; 2663-2664; 

2674; 2700-2702; 2786-

2787; 2801; 2837-2840; 

2895-2896; 2902; 2921; 

2923-2927; 3007-3030; 

Information is taken 

from sensitive internal 

product design 

documents and 

electronic schematic 

files whose disclosure 

could provide an 

unfair advantage to 

competitors. See Gotz 

Decl. ¶ 3.

Granted.

Case 3:14-cv-02868-JD Document 219 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 8
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

3059-3074; 3155-3179; 

3211-3228; 3298-3322; and 

3349-3365.

Exhibit G to 

PACT’s Motion 

for Leave to 

Amend its 

Infringement 

Contentions

As indicated in the public 

redacted version of Exhibit 

G attached to the 

Declaration of Kristen E. 

Lovin, portions of pages: 1 

and 3.

Internal code names 

and file names that 

could cause 

competitive harm if 

disclosed to 

competitors or others. 

See Gotz Decl. ¶ 4.

Granted.

Exhibit H to 

PACT’s Motion 

for Leave to 

Amend its 

Infringement 

Contentions

As indicated in the public 

redacted version of Exhibit 

H attached to the 

Declaration of Kristen E. 

Lovin, portions of page 1.

Internal code names 

and file names that 

could cause 

competitive harm if 

disclosed to 

competitors or others. 

See Gotz Decl. ¶ 4.

Granted.

B. PACT’s January 22, 2015, Motion (Dkt. No. 72)

PACT’s administrative motion to seal seeks to seal portions of its motion to disqualify Dr. 

Harry Tredennick, along with the entirety of three transcripts from the deposition of Dr. 

Tredennick in PACT XPP Technologies, AG v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-563-CE, in the 

Eastern District of Texas and Dr. Tredennick’s validity expert report in that case.

PACT says that the material is sealable because third-party Xilinx has designated the 

material “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” under the protective order 

in this case. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Xilinx submitted a declaration seeking to 

establish that the material in question is sealable. See Declaration of Marc Cohen, Dkt. No. 64. 

The Court rules as follows:

Document Portions to Be Filed 

Under Seal

Reason Material is 

Sealable

Ruling

PACT’s Motion As indicated in the public 

redacted version of 

PACT’s Motion to 

Disqualify Dr. Harry 

Tredennick and Motion 

for Protective Order, 

portions of pages: 9, 10, 

and 11.

Refers to sealable 

material from 

exhibits.

Denied. The 

redacted portions 

give a rough 

estimate of the 

number of hours 

spent by Dr. 

Tredennick on the 

Texas litigation and 

prior art references 

discussed in his 

expert report that 

Altera relies on in 

Case 3:14-cv-02868-JD Document 219 Filed 08/18/15 Page 4 of 8
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

this case. Xilinx’s 

declaration makes 

no showing of good 

cause to seal this 

information.

Exhibit G to

PACT’s Motion

Entire document Contains Xilinx 

proprietary 

technical 

information and it 

would be 

burdensome for 

non-party Xilinx to 

redact only the 

confidential 

portions.

Granted. 

Ordinarily, the 

Court would not 

permit an entire 

document to be 

sealed where only 

subsets of the 

document are 

sealable. See Civil 

L.R. 79-5(b) 

(requests to seal 

“must be narrowly 

tailored to seek 

sealing only of 

sealable material”). 

But in light of the 

fact that Xilinx is a 

third party and the 

burdens involved in 

redacting a 

document of this 

size, the Court 

grants the request.

Exhibit H to 

PACT’s Motion

Entire document Contains Xilinx 

proprietary 

technical 

information and it 

would be 

burdensome for 

non-party Xilinx to 

redact only the 

confidential 

portions.

Granted. See 

above.

Exhibit I to 

PACT’s Motion

Entire document Contains Xilinx 

proprietary 

technical 

information and it 

would be 

burdensome for 

non-party Xilinx to 

redact only the 

confidential 

portions.

Granted. See 

above.

Exhibit J to 

PACT’s Motion

Entire document Contains Xilinx 

proprietary 

technical 

information and it 

Granted. See 

above.

Case 3:14-cv-02868-JD Document 219 Filed 08/18/15 Page 5 of 8
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

would be 

burdensome for 

non-party Xilinx to 

redact only the 

confidential 

portions.

C. PACT’s January 29, 2015, Motion (Dkt. No. 79)

PACT’s administrative motion to seal seeks to seal portions of an Altera interrogatory 

response attached to its reply in support of its motion for leave to amend its infringement 

contentions, based on the fact that Altera designated the material “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” under the protective order in this case. Pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(e), Altera submitted a declaration seeking to establish that the material in question is 

sealable. See Declaration of Adela Gotz, Dkt. No. 82. The Court rules as follows:

Document Portions to Be Filed 

Under Seal

Reason Material is 

Sealable

Ruling

Exhibit M to 

PACT’s Reply 

in Support of its 

Motion for 

Leave to Amend 

its Infringement 

Contentions

Portions of pages 3 and 4, 

as indicated in the public 

redacted version.

Internal project 

numbers and product 

names that could 

cause competitive 

harm if disclosed to 

competitors or others. 

See Gotz Decl. ¶ 3.

Granted. The 

motion only seeks 

to redact two 

columns from an 

Altera 

interrogatory 

response listing 

project numbers 

and internal 

product names.

D. PACT’s February 12, 2015, Motion (Dkt. No. 88)

PACT’s administrative motion to seal seeks to seal portions of its reply in support of its 

motion to disqualify Dr. Harry Tredennick. PACT says that the material is sealable because thirdparty Xilinx has designated the material “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES 

ONLY” under the protective order in this case. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Xilinx 

submitted a declaration seeking to establish that the material in question is sealable. See

Declaration of Marc Cohen, Dkt. No. 93. The Court rules as follows:

Case 3:14-cv-02868-JD Document 219 Filed 08/18/15 Page 6 of 8
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

Document Portions to Be Filed 

Under Seal

Reason Material is 

Sealable

Ruling

PACT’s Reply As indicated in the public 

redacted version of 

PACT’s Reply, portions 

of pages 1 and 3-6.

Refers to sealable 

material from 

exhibits.

Denied. The 

redacted portions 

give a rough 

estimate of the 

number of hours 

spent by Dr. 

Tredennick on the 

Texas litigation, 

objections made by 

PACT’s counsel 

during his 

deposition in the 

Texas litigation, and 

other non-sensitive 

testimony. The 

information redacted 

at Dkt. No. 89 at 

2:12 was already 

filed in the public 

record at Dkt. No. 

73 at 1:19. Xilinx’s 

declaration does not 

discuss, much less 

show good cause to 

seal, this specific 

information.

A. PACT’s July 27, 2015, Motion (Dkt. No. 205)

PACT’s administrative motion to seal seeks to seal portions of a discovery letter brief, 

based on the fact that Altera designated the material “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” under the protective order in this case. Altera has not filed the 

supporting declaration necessary under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) to maintain this information 

under seal, so the Court denies the motion.

Case 3:14-cv-02868-JD Document 219 Filed 08/18/15 Page 7 of 8
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

III. CONCLUSION

To the extent an administrative motions to file under seal discussed in this order was 

denied with respect to a document, PACT should file an unredacted version of the document 

within 7 days of this order, except with respect to the administrative motion to file under seal at 

Dkt. No. 205. With respect to that motion, PACT should file the document in the public record no 

earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, from the date of this order, pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(e)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02868-JD Document 219 Filed 08/18/15 Page 8 of 8