Case No. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK Non-Party Intel’s Administrative Motion to 

Seal Confidential Information Pursuant to L.R. 

7-11 & 79-5

ActiveUS 171161897v.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

Mark D. Selwyn (SBN: 244180)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

950 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304

Telephone: (650) 858-6000

Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

William F. Lee (pro hac vice)

Joseph J. Mueller (pro hac vice)

Mark A. Ford (pro hac vice)

Timothy Syrett (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

60 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

Telephone: (617) 526-6000 

Facsimile: (617) 526-5000

Attorneys for Non-Party Intel Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation,

 Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

NON-PARTY INTEL 

CORPORATION’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION PURSUANT TO L.R. 

7-11 & 79-5

Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor

The Honorable Lucy H. Koh

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1175 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 6
Case No. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK 1 Non-Party Intel’s Administrative Motion to 

Seal Confidential Information Pursuant to L.R. 

7-11 & 79-5

ActiveUS 171161897v.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

Pursuant to the Court’s December 13, 2017 Order (ECF No. 1003) and Civil Local Rules 

7-11 and 79-5(d) and (e), non-party Intel Corporation (“Intel”) respectfully requests that the Court 

issue an order protecting from public disclosure (1) certain portions of proposed trial exhibits 

JX0104, JX0117, QX0089, QX0092, QX0094, QX0095, and CX 1598; and (2) highly confidential 

and competitively sensitive Intel information during the trial testimony of Aichatou (“Aicha”)

Evans, Senior Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer at Intel. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Intel respectfully requests an order sealing portions of proposed trial exhibits JX0104, 

JX0117, QX0089, QX0092, QX0094, QX0095, and CX 1598 (as identified in Exhibits 1-7 to the 

accompanying Declaration of Timothy Syrett (“Syrett Declaration”)) so that they will not be 

displayed to members of the public during trial or published without redactions in final, publiclyavailable trial transcripts and exhibits.

Intel also requests an order directing the parties to (a) refrain from asking questions that

would disclose the specific contents of the redacted portions of the proposed trial exhibits; and 

(b) refrain from asking questions designed to elicit detailed public testimony from Ms. Evans

relating to: 

1. Intel’s margins, profitability, or cost structure relating to 4G or 5G baseband 

chipsets;

2. Intel’s future plans, future roadmap, or future competitive position with respect to 

4G or 5G chipsets; or

3. The identity of confidential prospective customers of Intel with respect to the sale 

of baseband chipsets.

Intel asks that the Court exercise its discretion to preclude any questioning by the parties 

in open court, and to direct the parties to examine Ms. Evans on these subjects only in closed 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1175 Filed 01/07/19 Page 2 of 6
Case No. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK 2 Non-Party Intel’s Administrative Motion to 

Seal Confidential Information Pursuant to L.R. 

7-11 & 79-5

ActiveUS 171161897v.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

session. In the alternative, Intel requests that any examination on these subjects in open court be 

tailored to avoid detailed, specific testimony about these subjects.

ARGUMENT

Trial exhibits, or excerpts thereof, may be sealed if a party “establishes that the documents, 

or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitles to protection 

under the law.” Civ. Local Rule 79-5(b). Though there is a “strong presumption in favor of 

access,” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), a 

movant may overcome this presumption by submitting a “narrowly tailor[ed]” request, Civ. Local 

Rule 75-9(b), and articulating “‘compelling reasons’ in favor of sealing.” Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin 

Int’l, Inc., No. 10-cv-3972, 2012 WL 6019754, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (Koh, J.) 

(“‘[C]ompelling reasons may exist if sealing is required to prevent judicial documents from being 

used ‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’”); see 

also Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (the designating party must 

set forth “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings”) (internal citations omitted). 

When the information sought to be sealed may “release trade secrets,” a “compelling reason” exists 

for the sealing of court records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) at 598). “[T]he common law right of inspection has bowed before 

the power of a court to insure that its records are not used . . . as sources of business information 

that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). For example, “pricing terms, royalty rates, and 

guaranteed minimum payment terms” are sealable trade secrets. Id.; see also ECF No. 1100 at 3.

The information that Intel seeks to seal meets the “compelling reasons” standard. 

Disclosure of the information contained within Intel’s proposed redactions and related testimony

would threaten competitive harm to Intel, including by disadvantaging Intel in negotiations with 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1175 Filed 01/07/19 Page 3 of 6
Case No. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK 3 Non-Party Intel’s Administrative Motion to 

Seal Confidential Information Pursuant to L.R. 

7-11 & 79-5

ActiveUS 171161897v.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

current or future business partners or by providing Intel’s competitors (including Qualcomm, 

which presumably will have corporate representatives in court) with information that would 

provide them with a competitive advantage against Intel, as detailed in the accompanying 

Declaration of Evangelina Almirantearena (“Almirantearena Decl.”) ¶ 4. 

QX0095 contains a 2017 presentation analyzing Intel’s pricing of baseband chipsets to 

Apple and other customers. (Almirantearena Decl. ¶ 5(f).) The information that Intel seeks to 

redact includes specific pricing terms and analysis of Intel’s pricing strategy, along with detailed 

analysis of Intel’s products. (Id.) Similarly, QX0094 contains a 2016 email thread discussing in 

detail Intel’s costs of production for baseband chipsets, strategies for cost reduction, and detailed 

analysis of Intel’s products. (Id. ¶ 5(e).) There are compelling reasons to warrant sealing of this 

information along with any related testimony because it would put Intel at a significant 

disadvantage to its customers and competitors if they had insight into Intel’s pricing strategy and 

its cost structure. Id.; see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x at 569.

JX0104 contains a 2015 presentation that provides a detailed description of Intel’s 5G 

strategy. (Almirantearena Decl. ¶ 5(a).) Likewise, JX0117 contains a 2016 presentation outlining

strategy for Intel’s Communications Devices Group (ICDG). (Id. ¶ 5(b).) QX0089 is a 2016 

whitepaper evaluating Intel building mobile systems on a chip. (Id. ¶ 5(c).) QX0092 contains a 

2015 analysis of Intel’s research and development spending. (Id. ¶ 5(d).) The portions of these 

exhibits that Intel seeks to seal reveal detailed information about Intel’s baseband chipset and 5G 

business strategies, including its valuation of available business opportunities and areas of focus; 

and its research and development costs, allocations, and areas of emphasis. (Id. ¶ 4.) Revealing 

this information to competitors would put Intel at a commercial disadvantage by providing detailed 

insight to its competitors regarding Intel’s strategy to compete in the wireless industry. (Id.) Thus, 

there are compelling reasons to seal portions of these exhibits and shield from public view 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1175 Filed 01/07/19 Page 4 of 6
Case No. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK 4 Non-Party Intel’s Administrative Motion to 

Seal Confidential Information Pursuant to L.R. 

7-11 & 79-5

ActiveUS 171161897v.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

testimony regarding the redactions or related subject matter. See, e.g., In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 

3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (finding compelling 

reasons to seal pleadings and briefings that reveal “business strategies”); Krieger v. Atheros 

Commc’ns, Inc., No. 11-CV-00640-LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2011)

(Koh., J.) (finding compelling reasons to seal “financial information and analysis” in a presentation 

that “appears to be highly sensitive and confidential”); In re Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales Practices 

Litig., No. 09MD2087 BTM AJB, 2011 WL 864897, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011) (finding

compelling reasons to seal “e-mails which reveal business and marketing strategy, information 

regarding product development, sales and pricing information, financials, internal troubleshooting, 

and information regarding the businesses of clients”).

Finally, CX1598 is an email and presentation regarding Intel’s acquisition of Via Telecom. 

(Almirantearena Decl. ¶ 5(g).) The only information that Intel seeks to seal in this exhibit relates 

to Intel’s valuation of Via Telecom and summaries of certain license agreements implicated by the 

transaction. Revealing Intel’s purchase price for and valuations of Via Telecom would provide

insight into Intel’s valuation practices that could be applied by other potential acquisition targets 

to put Intel at a competitive disadvantage in negotiations. (Id.); ECF No. 1100 at 2-3 (granting 

motion to seal “information that . . . divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract 

negotiations”). 

To Intel’s knowledge, none of the information that it seeks to have sealed has ever been 

publicly disclosed. (Almirantearena Decl. ¶ 4.) Further, Intel designated each of the documents 

contained in the proposed exhibits as highly confidential (“Intel Highly Confidential – Outside 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1175 Filed 01/07/19 Page 5 of 6
Case No. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK 5 Non-Party Intel’s Administrative Motion to 

Seal Confidential Information Pursuant to L.R. 

7-11 & 79-5

ActiveUS 171161897v.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

Attorneys’ Eyes Only”) under the protective order in this litigation. (Declaration of Timothy Syrett 

¶¶ 6-12.) 

Further, Intel has narrowly tailored its request. Intel seeks to seal only limited portions of 

a subset of the Intel documents that Qualcomm and the FTC have identified as potential trial 

exhibits for Ms. Evans’s testimony. (Id. ¶ 4.)

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Intel respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion to 

Seal and order the relief requested.

Dated: January 7, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Timothy Syrett

William F. Lee

Joseph J. Mueller

Mark A. Ford

Timothy Syrett

William.Lee@wilmerhale.com

Joseph.Mueller@wilmerhale.com

Mark.Ford@wilmerhale.com

Timothy.Syrett@wilmerhale.com

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

60 State Street

Boston, MA 02109

Telephone: 617-526-6423

Facsimile: 617-526-5000

Mark Selwyn

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

950 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304

Telephone: (650) 858-6000

Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

Attorneys for Non-Party Intel Corporation

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1175 Filed 01/07/19 Page 6 of 6