United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

Case Nos. C05-01668 RMW (HRL)

C05-01766 RMW (HRL)

INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A

PROTECTIVE ORDER

On January 31, 2006, this court heard the “Motion for Entry of a Protective Order” filed

by plaintiff Computer Cache Coherency Corporation (“CCCC”). Defendant Intel Corporation

(“Intel”) opposed the motion. Defendant Via Technologies, Inc. (“Via”) joined in Intel’s

opposition.

The parties agree that a protective order is necessary to safeguard confidential and

proprietary information that may be disclosed in the course of this litigation. However, among

*E-FILED ON 2/1/06*

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 36 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

other things, they dispute whether any protective order to be entered should restrict patent

prosecution activities by any outside counsel or expert who reviews “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information. Briefly stated, Intel argues that such a provision is

necessary to prevent any inadvertent disclosure of its confidential information by persons

involved in patent prosecution. CCCC contends that Intel has not made a sufficient showing for

such a restriction and that Intel’s proposed terms are, in any event, overbroad and onerous.

Based upon the record presented, it appears that the only person who might be involved

in patent prosecution is one of CCCC’s outside litigation attorneys, Omer Salik. However, the

record reflects only that Salik is registered to practice before the United States Patent &

Trademark Office (see Farrell Decl., Ex. 31), and this court is not persuaded that Salik’s status

as a patent attorney, standing alone, is sufficient to justify the restrictions requested by Intel. 

See U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d, 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that

access to confidential information cannot be denied solely because of counsel’s status as an inhouse attorney). CCCC argues that Intel has made no effort to present any evidence as to

CCCC’s counsel’s actual patent prosecution activities. Intel contends that any further facts are

in CCCC’s possession and have not been forthcoming from CCCC.

The U.S. Steel Corp. decision counsels that each case must be evaluated on its own facts

on a counsel-by-counsel basis. See U.S. Steel Corp., 730 F.2d at 1468. This court finds that

further facts are necessary to inform its decision as to the instant motion for a protective order. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. No later than February 13, 2006, attorney Salik shall submit a declaration (a)

advising as to his patent prosecution activities (if any) in the area involved in the instant

litigation, and (b) informing the court as to his advice and participation (if any) in “competitive

decisionmaking” for CCCC under the standard set out in U.S. Steel Corp. The declaration shall

describe the factual circumstances surrounding his activities, association and relationship with

CCCC, including whether he provides patent prosecution services in the area involved in the

instant litigation.

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 36 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2. To the extent CCCC wishes to submit further briefing as to any new issues raised

by Salik’s declaration, it may file a supplemental brief (not to exceed 5 pages) no later than

February 13, 2006.

3. Intel and Via may file responsive papers as to any new issues raised by Salik’s

declaration (with their respective briefs not to exceed 5 pages) no later than February 17, 2006.

4. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the matter will be taken under submission

without further oral argument.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

February 1, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 36 Filed 02/01/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

5:05-cv-1668 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com, njohnson@fr.com 

Joseph V Colaianni , Jr Colaianni@fr.com 

Roderick G. Dorman dormanr@hbdlawyers.com, spearsl@hbdlawyers.com 

John Michael Farrell jfarrell@fr.com, lzh@fr.com 

Robert Paul Feldman rfeldman@wsgr.com, rarteaga@wsgr.com 

George C. Fisher gfisher@rfwklaw.com, 

Lawrence M. Hadley hadleyl@hbdlawyers.com, 

Mark E. Miller markmiller@omm.com, kfraser@omm.com; fdacosta@omm.com 

Jennifer Ochs jochs@wsgr.com, rpezzimenti@wsgr.com 

Matthew R. Reed mreed@wsgr.com, pciviletti@wsgr.com 

Maura Rees mrees@wsgr.com 

Timothy Wayne Riffe Riffe@fr.com, conway@fr.com; wood@fr.com 

Omer Salik saliko@hbdlawyers.com, rangelm@hbdlawyers.com 

Luann Loraine Simmons lsimmons@omm.com, smeblin@omm.com; cholsome@omm.com 

5:05-cv-1766 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com, njohnson@fr.com 

Joseph V Colaianni , Jr Colaianni@fr.com 

Roderick G. Dorman dormanr@hbdlawyers.com, spearsl@hbdlawyers.com 

John Michael Farrell jfarrell@fr.com, lzh@fr.com 

George C. Fisher fisher.george@dorsey.com, 

Lawrence M. Hadley hadleyl@hbdlawyers.com, 

Timothy Wayne Riffe Riffe@fr.com, conway@fr.com; wood@fr.com 

Omer Salik saliko@hbdlawyers.com, rangelm@hbdlawyers.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 36 Filed 02/01/06 Page 4 of 4