Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00010/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00010-8/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

SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KINETIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00010-SI 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Currently before the Court are plaintiff Skyworks’ administrative motions to file various 

documents under seal, in connection with Skyworks' opposition to motions by defendant Kinetic 

Technologies, Inc. (Kinetic USA). Docket Nos. 60; 82; 104. Also before the Court are Kinetic 

USA’s administrative motions to file various documents under seal, in connection with Kinetic's 

reply and supplemental briefs on the same motions. Docket Nos. 66; 87; 89. 

Defendant Kinetic USA, the designating party, has submitted the declarations of Scott 

Kolassa and Oliver Kroll in support of the motions to file under seal. Docket Nos. 63; 66; 83; 

106. Kinetic USA alleges that certain portions of the summary judgment briefs contain 

confidential information about Kinetic USA’s technology, product development and planning, 

business strategies, finances, and confidential information of third parties; Kinetic USA contends 

that public disclosure of this information could have adverse financial and competitive 

consequences to Kinetic USA. 

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” 

courts begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State 

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “A stipulation, or a blanket protective 

order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of 

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 117 Filed 03/02/15 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

documents under seal.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). When applying to file documents under seal in 

connection with a dispositive motion, the party seeking to seal must articulate “compelling reasons 

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” 

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted). Where a party seeks to seal documents attached to a nondispositive motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is 

sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal 

must be “narrowly tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from 

public access. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). These documents are submitted in connection to a dispositive 

motion. Accordingly, to establish that these documents are sealable, Kinetic USA has the burden 

of articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the 

public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

The Court has considered each of the documents designated for sealing, as articulated in 

the table below.

Docket 

No.

Document Title Court’s Ruling

60-1 Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

DENIED. 

The request is not narrowly tailored and seeks to file 

transcripts of deposition testimony in their entirety because 

they are “not practically susceptible to redaction.” 

60-1 Exhibit I 

Exhibit Q

DENIED.

The Kolassa declaration states that these exhibits contain 

confidential financial and business practice information and 

product planning and development information of Kinetic 

USA and related entities and that public disclosure of this 

confidential information would enable a competitor to 

unfairly compete or attempt to interfere with their efforts to 

compete in the marketplace. Kinetic USA seeks to file these 

documents under seal in their entirety. Skyworks does not 

oppose this sealing, but the Court finds that Kinetic USA’s 

proffered reasons for sealing are insufficient under 

Kamakana. Kinetic USA has not articulated compelling 

reasons supported by factual findings that outweigh the 

public’s right of access. Furthermore, this request is not 

narrowly tailored. Here, Kinetic USA seeks to file under seal 

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 117 Filed 03/02/15 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

information that it did not designate as sealable in Exhibit N. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion as to these 

Exhibits.

60-1 Exhibit M

Exhibit O

Exhibit S

DENIED.

The Kolassa declaration states that these exhibits contain 

confidential financial information, technical information, 

product planning and development data, business projections 

and strategies and confidential information belonging to 

Kinetic USA and/or third parties and that public disclosure of 

this confidential information would pose a significant threat 

to Kinetic USA’s competitive standing and would invade the 

confidentiality of third parties. Kinetic USA seeks to file 

these documents under seal in their entirety but has not 

articulated compelling reasons supported by factual findings 

that outweigh the public’s right of access. In addition, 

Kinetic USA’s request is not narrowly tailored. For example,

information that Kinetic USA did not designate as sealable in 

the revised version of Exhibit N is designated as sealable in 

Exhibits M and S. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the 

motion to file these documents under seal. 

60-1 Exhibit R 

Exhibit U

Exhibit V

Exhibit X 

DENIED.

The Kolassa declaration states that these Exhibits contain 

confidential technical information belonging to Kinetic USA 

and/or related entities along with confidential information 

belonging to one or more third parties, the public disclosure 

of which would pose a threat to Kinetic USA’s competitive 

standing and would invade the confidentiality of third parties. 

Kinetic USA seeks to file these exhibits under seal in their

entirety. This request is not narrowly tailored and Kinetic 

USA has not articulated compelling reasons supported by 

factual findings that outweigh the public’s right of access. 

60-1 Exhibit J DENIED.

The Kolassa declaration states that this Exhibit contains

technical information or business practice information, 

product planning data, and confidential information 

belonging to Kinetic USA and related entities and that public 

disclosure of this confidential information would pose a 

significant threat to Kinetic USA’s competitive standing. 

Kinetic USA seeks to file this document under seal in its 

entirety. The Court finds that Kinetic USA has not 

articulated compelling reasons supported by factual findings 

that outweigh the public’s right of access. Further, this

request is not narrowly tailored. For example, Kinetic USA 

seeks to file its street address under seal. Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES the motion as to this Exhibit. 

60-1 Exhibit F

Exhibit G

Exhibit K

GRANTED. 

The Kolassa declaration states that these exhibits contain 

“confidential financial information and bank account identifiCase 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 117 Filed 03/02/15 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

Exhibit L cation,” public disclosure of which would significantly 

threaten Kinetic USA’s accounts and competitive standing. 

After reviewing the Exhibits and the attached declaration, the 

Court concludes that Kinetic USA has sufficiently articulated 

compelling reasons for sealing Exhibits F, G, K, and L. 

63 Exhibit 1: Skyworks’ 

Opposition to Kinetic 

USA’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment

Kinetic USA has proposed reduced redactions to Skyworks’ 

opposition brief. The Court GRANTS the motion to seal as 

to the following sections only:

Page 8, lines 21-26.

Page 19, table displayed on lines 3-5

Page 22, lines 12-18 and lines 27-28

Page 23, lines 12-16

Except for the passages designated above, the Court DENIES 

the motion to seal this document.

63 Exhibit E

Exhibit H

Exhibit N 

Exhibit P

Exhibit Z

GRANTED.

Kinetic USA has submitted a revised redaction of these

Exhibits, more narrowly tailored than the versions submitted 

by Skyworks. After reviewing the declaration and the 

portions of the Exhibits at issue, the Court concludes that 

Kinetic USA has sufficiently articulated compelling reasons 

for sealing the requested portions. In addition, Kinetic USA 's

request to seal the Exhibits is narrowly tailored, as it seeks to 

redact only sealable information from the Exhibits.

63 Exhibit T Kinetic USA has submitted a revised redaction of this 

Exhibit, more narrowly tailored than the version submitted by 

Skyworks. 

The Court DENIES the motion to seal as to the following 

redactions only:

Page 1

Page 2

Except for the redactions designated above, the Court 

GRANTS the motion to seal this document.

63 Exhibit W DENIED.

Kinetic USA has submitted a revised redaction of this 

Exhibit, more narrowly tailored than the version submitted by 

Skyworks. The Court finds that Kinetic USA has not 

articulated compelling reasons supported by factual findings 

that outweigh the public’s right of access. 

66 Supplemental 

Declaration of Kin

Shum

GRANTED. 

The Kolassa declaration states that the Supplemental Shum 

declaration contains confidential information about Kinetic 

USA’s technology, product development and planning and 

business strategies and that the public disclosure of this 

information would allow a competitor to gain an unfair 

competitive advantage over Kinetic USA in the marketplace. 

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 117 Filed 03/02/15 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

The declaration further states that the Shum declaration 

contains confidential information regarding commercial 

relationships and business strategies of Kinetic USA’s foreign 

affiliates and customers. Having reviewed the Kroll 

declaration and the portions of the Shum Declaration at issue, 

the Court concludes that Kinetic USA has sufficiently 

articulated compelling reasons for sealing the requested 

portions. In addition, Kinetic USA's request to seal the Shum 

Declaration is narrowly tailored, as it seeks to redact only 

sealable information.

82 Supplemental Exhibit 

II

GRANTED. 

The Kroll declaration states this document contains 

confidential financial and business practice information of 

Kinetic USA and related entities and that public disclosure of 

this confidential information would enable a competitor to 

unfairly compete or attempt to interfere with their efforts to 

compete in the marketplace. After reviewing the exhibit and 

the Kroll declaration, the Court concludes that Kinetic USA 

has sufficiently articulated compelling reasons for sealing 

Supplemental Exhibit II. 

82 Supplemental Exhibits 

JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, 

QQ

GRANTED. 

The Kroll declaration states these documents contain 

confidential test specifications of Kinetic USA and related 

entities and that public disclosure of this confidential 

information would enable a competitor to unfairly compete or 

attempt to interfere with their efforts to compete in the 

marketplace. After reviewing the exhibits and the Kroll 

declaration, the Court concludes that Kinetic USA has 

sufficiently articulated compelling reasons for sealing 

Supplemental Exhibits JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, and QQ

82 Supplemental Exhibit 

OO

DENIED.

The Kroll declaration states that this Exhibit contains 

confidential test plans and product results of Kinetic USA and 

related entities and that public disclosure of this confidential 

information would enable a competitor to unfairly compete or 

attempt to interfere with their efforts to compete in the 

marketplace. Having reviewed the exhibit and the Kroll 

declaration the Court finds that Kinetic USA has not 

articulated compelling reasons supported by factual findings 

that outweigh the public’s right of access. Further, this 

request is not narrowly tailored. For example, Kinetic USA 

seeks to file under seal street address blocks and the dates of 

the included emails. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the 

motion as to this Exhibit. 

82 Supplemental Exhibit 

PP

GRANTED. 

The Kroll declaration states this document contains 

confidential technical information and product planning and 

development data belonging to Kinetic USA and related 

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 117 Filed 03/02/15 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

entities and that public disclosure of this confidential 

information would pose a significant threat to Kinetic USA’s 

competitive standing and violate the confidentiality of third 

parties. After reviewing the exhibit and the Kroll declaration, 

the Court concludes that Kinetic USA has sufficiently 

articulated compelling reasons for sealing Supplemental 

Exhibit PP. In addition, Kinetic USA's request to seal the 

Exhibits is narrowly tailored, as it seeks to redact only 

portions of the Exhibit.

82 Supplemental Exhibits

RR, SS, TT, UU, VV,

WW, XX, YY, ZZ

DENIED:

Docket No. 82, Skyworks’ Administrative Motion to File 

under Seal, includes Supplemental Exhibits RR, SS, TT, UU, 

VV, WW, XX, YY, and ZZ. Kinetic USA, the designating 

party, has not filed a declaration in support of Skyworks’ 

motions that addresses these supplemental exhibits. 

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

83 Exhibit 1: Skyworks’ 

Supplemental Brief

DENIED.

Kinetic USA has proposed reduced redactions to Skyworks’

supplemental brief. Docket No. 83 ¶ 6. However, the 

documents submitted to the Court are not in color and the 

Court is therefore unable to determine which sections 

constitute Kinetic USA’s proposed redactions. 

83 Exhibit 2 GRANTED:

This document is a high resolution version of Exhibit P, 

discussed above. 

87, 89 Exhibits LL, MM,

NN, QQ and Cover

Emails

DENIED. 

The Kroll declaration states that these Exhibit and Cover 

Emails contain test plans and results for Kinetic designed 

products and the Cover Emails contain references to this 

confidential material and confidential information about 

Kinetic USA’s technology, product development and 

planning which would enable a competitor to unfairly 

compete or attempt to interfere with their efforts to compete 

in the marketplace. Having reviewed the exhibits and cover 

emails and the Kroll declaration the Court finds that Kinetic 

USA has not articulated compelling reasons supported by 

factual findings that outweigh the public’s right of access. 

Further, this request is not narrowly tailored. For example, 

Kinetic USA seeks to file under seal street address blocks and 

the dates of the included emails. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES the motion as to these Exhibits. 

87, 89 Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to

the Supplemental 

Declaration of Kin 

Shum

DENIED. 

Kinetic USA seeks to file under seal data sheets for the 

KTD265, KTD267, and KTD268. The Kroll declaration 

states that these Exhibits contain confidential technical 

information about Kinetic products which would enable a 

competitor to unfairly compete or attempt to interfere with 

their efforts to compete in the marketplace. However, the

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 117 Filed 03/02/15 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

same documents were submitted with Docket No. 62 which 

Kinetic USA did not seek to file under seal. The court 

DENIES the motion as to this Exhibit. 

87, 89 Exhibit 4 to the 

Supplemental 

Declaration of Kin 

Shum

DENIED. 

The Kroll declaration states that this Exhibit contains 

confidential technical information, product planning and 

development data and confidential information belonging to 

Kinetic USA and/or related entities, the public disclosure of 

which would pose a significant threat to Kinetic USA’s 

competitive standing and would invade the confidentiality of 

third parties. The Kroll declaration states that Exhibits 1, 2, 

and 3 are not susceptible to redaction, accordingly Kinetic 

USA requests Exhibit 4 be accepted under seal. Kinetic USA 

has not explained why Exhibit 4 is or is not susceptible to 

redaction and why it should be filed under seal in its entirety. 

The court DENIES the motion as to this Exhibit. 

106 Exhibit 1: Skyworks’ 

Supplemental Reply

Brief

DENIED.

Kinetic USA has proposed reduced redactions to Skyworks’ 

supplemental brief. Docket No. 106 ¶ 6. However, the 

documents submitted to the Court are not in color and the 

Court is therefore unable to determine which sections 

constitute Kinetic USA’s proposed redactions. 

The parties are ORDERED to file, in the public record and not under seal, all documents 

and portions of documents as outlined above, unless Kinetic USA refiles its declarations, no later 

than March 9, 2015, in a format that articulates compelling reasons supported by specific factual 

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure and 

is narrowly tailored such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public 

access. 

Kinetic USA must also comply with the Civil Local Rules, which require the 

administrative motion be accompanied by a proposed order “which lists in a table format each 

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(B).

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 117 Filed 03/02/15 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

If Kinetic USA does refile its declarations in this way, the Court will consider and 

rule on the sealing requests. Otherwise, the parties are ORDERED to file the documents as 

outlined above in the public record by March 9, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 117 Filed 03/02/15 Page 8 of 8