Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04963/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04963-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK 

ORDER RE NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEALING ORDER

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

XILINX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK 

ORDER RE NOTICE OF 

COMPLIANCE WITH SEALING 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 67

On July 9, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part three administrative sealing 

motions filed in connection with Defendant Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG’s motion to 

dismiss. See ECF No. 61. Before the Court is Plaintiff Xilinx, Inc.’s notice of compliance with 

the Court’s sealing order. ECF No. 67. As part of Plaintiff’s notice of compliance, Plaintiff filed 

newly redacted versions of two documents, ECF Nos. 51-5 and 51-6. The Court previously 

denied Plaintiff’s motion to seal these two documents without prejudice. See ECF No. 61. 

Because filing redacted versions of the two documents effectively renews Plaintiff’s motion to 

seal, the Court considers below whether the documents contain sealable information.

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Case 5:14-cv-04963-LHK Document 68 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK 

ORDER RE NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEALING ORDER

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

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong 

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79. 

Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally 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). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may 

lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without 

more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Motions to dismiss are typically treated as 

dispositive. In re PPA Prods. Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2006).

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id. 

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that 

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each 

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the 

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document 

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id.

Below, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to Plaintiff’s renewed request 

to seal documents in connection with Defendant’s motion to dismiss. With these standards in 

mind, the Court rules as follows: 

Case 5:14-cv-04963-LHK Document 68 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK 

ORDER RE NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEALING ORDER

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

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

67 Compelling 

Reasons

Declaration of Jason M. 

Gonder in support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition, 

Exhibit 28 (Licensing 

Candidate Overview slide 

deck)

DENIED with prejudice as to the proposed 

redactions on Papst-Juris-0123 and PapstJuris-0125. The Court will not seal publicly 

available information. Otherwise, GRANTED 

as to the proposed redactions.

67 Compelling 

Reasons

Declaration of Jason M. 

Gonder in support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition, 

Exhibit 29 (Patent 

Purchase Agreement)

DENIED with prejudice as to the proposed 

redactions on Papst-Juris-0338, § 1.1. The 

Court will not seal publicly available 

information. See No. 14-CV-04794, ECF No. 

64. Otherwise, GRANTED as to the proposed 

redactions. 

Plaintiff shall file redacted versions of Exhibits 28 and 29 to the Declaration of Jason M. 

Gonder consistent with this order within seven (7) days. 

The Court notes that Defendant has failed to publicly file ECF No. 55-4, Defendant’s reply 

brief in support of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court denied Defendant’s motion to seal 

ECF No. 55-4 with prejudice on July 9, 2015. ECF No. 61. The Court also ordered that, for 

motions denied with prejudice, “the submitting party must file an unredacted version of the 

document within seven (7) days.” See id. Over five months have passed since the Court’s sealing 

order. The Court referred to ECF No. 55-4 in ruling on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 

62. Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to publicly file an unredacted version of ECF No. 55-4 

within seven (7) days of this order. Further delay in compliance with the Court’s orders may 

result in sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04963-LHK Document 68 Filed 12/28/15 Page 3 of 3