Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-48/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

 Initially, plaintiff sought to file under seal the entirety of all ten exhibits; by its

supplemental declaration plaintiff modified the scope of its request. (See Dkt. No. 286,

Supplemental Headley Decl. ¶¶ 11-13.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. 09-5235 MMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

SEPTEMBER 27, 2013

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE

UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO

PLAINTIFF

Before the Court are plaintiff’s Administrative Motions to File Under Seal (see Dkt.

Nos. 250, 253), both filed September 27, 2013, and supplemented on October 15, 2013, by

which motions plaintiff (1) seeks to file under seal redacted portions of its Motion for

Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, as well as the entirety of four exhibits to the

declaration of Howard G. Pollack in support thereof; and (2) seeks to file under seal

redacted portions of its Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Gu-Yeon Wei and Dr. Jonathan

Wood and three exhibits to the declaration of Michael R. Headley in support thereof, as well

as the entirety of seven other exhibits to said declaration.1 In both motions, plaintiff seeks

to file under seal material designated by defendants as confidential as well as material

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 313 Filed 11/04/13 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

deemed confidential by plaintiff. Having read and considered plaintiff’s administrative

motions, the Court rules as follows.

A party moving to file material under seal must include a “declaration establishing

that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable,” see Civil

L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A), and, where the material is submitted in support of a dispositive motion,

such party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific fact[s],” see

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Additionally,

where the submitting party seeks to file under seal a document designated as confidential

by the opposing party, “the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all

of the designated information is sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party

does not file a responsive declaration as required by subsection 79-5(e)(1) and the

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the Submitting Party may file the

document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the

motion is denied.” Id. at 79-5(e)(2).

With respect to the proposed redacted portions of its summary judgment motion and

its motion to exclude, and with respect to Exhibits 9-11 to the Pollack Declaration and

Exhibits 2, 3, and 8 to the Headley Declaration, plaintiff asserts such material discloses

circuit schematics that would enable competitors to copy its products, as well as other

information regarding the internal operation and architecture of products. (See Dkt. No.

286, Supplemental Headley Decl. ¶¶ 7-9, 11-13.) The Court, having reviewed the subject

material, finds plaintiff has made the requisite showing of “compelling reasons” for the relief

sought. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178.

With respect to the sealing of Exhibit 5 to the Pollack Declaration and Exhibits 1, 7,

9, and 12-15 to the Headley Declaration, plaintiff’s sole basis for seeking sealing is that

said documents have been designated by defendants as confidential. (Dkt. No. 250,

Headley Decl. ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 253, Headley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6, 8-9). Defendants respond that

neither Exhibit 5 to the Pollack Declaration nor Exhibits 1, 9, and 15 to the Headley

Declaration contain information defendants deem confidential. As to Exhibits 7 and 12-14

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 313 Filed 11/04/13 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

to the Headley Declaration, however, defendants assert said documents contain

confidential schematics and other information regarding the design and functionality of their

products, and the Court, having reviewed Exhibits 7 and 12-14, finds defendants have

made the requisite showing. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated:

1. To the extent plaintiff seeks to file under seal redacted portions of its summary

judgment motion, its motion to exclude, and Exhibits 2, 3, and 8 to the Headley Declaration,

and to the extent plaintiff seeks to file under seal in their entirety Exhibits 9-11 to the

Pollack Declaration and Exhibits 7 and 12-14 to the Headley Declaration, plaintiff’s motions

are hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record the

proposed redacted versions of Exhibits 2, 3, and 8 to the Headley Declaration and to file

under seal the unredacted versions of said exhibits.

2. To the extent plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibit 5 to the Pollack Declaration

and Exhibits 1, 9, and 15 to the Headley Declaration, plaintiff’s motions are hereby

DENIED, and plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file said documents in the public record no

later than November 8, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2013 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 313 Filed 11/04/13 Page 3 of 3