Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04265/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04265-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C-04-4265 MMC

ORDER DENYING REALTEK’S

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 98)

Before the Court is plaintiff Realtek Semiconductor Corporation’s (“Realtek”) motion,

filed October 4, 2005, for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September

23, 2005 order denying Realtek’s motion to file under seal an Early Neutral Evaluation

(“ENE”) statement previously submitted by defendant Marvell Semiconductor Inc.

(“Marvell”), along with a brief and declaration in which Realtek refers to events occurring

during the ENE session between Realtek and Marvell. The Court held that Realtek had

violated ADR Local Rule 5-12, which requires all parties to “treat as ‘confidential

information’ the contents of the written ENE Statements, anything that happened or was

said, any position taken, and any view of the merits of the case formed by any participant in

connection with any ENE session.” See ADR L.R. 5-12.

Case 3:04-cv-04265-MMC Document 102 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Realtek now seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order, on

the ground that an “exception to the ADR Local Rules regarding confidentiality appl[ies] in

this instance due to the very high probative value of this evidence on issues squarely raised

by Marvel in its motion [for attorneys’ fees] . . . and because such highly probative evidence

is not available to Realtek from any other source.” (See Motion at 2.) The Commentary to

ADR Local Rule 5-12 provides that there may be “some limited circumstances in which the

need for disclosure outweighs the importance of protecting the confidentiality of an ENE

session,” citing such examples as death threats, the use of mediation to commit a felony,

and the need to prevent manifest injustice. See ADR Local Rule 5-12, Commentary. 

Realtek’s proposed motion for reconsideration fails to raise any such or equivalent

circumstances.

Accordingly, Realtek’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is hereby

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04265-MMC Document 102 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2