`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS
`LLC,
`
`No. C 17-03980 WHA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING
`INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al.,
`Defendants.
` /
`
`ORDER DENYING
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
`TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`Plaintiff seeks to file under seal in connection with defendants’ motion to dismiss for
`lack of standing certain portions of the briefing and exhibits in connection with the underlying
`motion (Dkt. Nos. 94, 99, 102). The motions are DENIED.
`In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding
`whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.
`2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To
`seal judicial records in connection with a dispositive motion requires “compelling reasons
`supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public
`policies favoring disclosure.” See id. at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted).
`Specifically, plaintiff seeks to redact portions of the briefs that quote to and discuss the
`patent transfer agreement between Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) and plaintif, the
`patent transfer agreement itself, and the amendment thereto (Dkt. Nos. 94 at 1; 99 at 2; 102 at
`1). In support of the requests to seal, plaintiff states that the agreement itself “includes a
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-03980-WHA Document 124 Filed 09/28/19 Page 2 of 2
`
`confidentiality provision at page 12, which provides that the parties to the agreement and their
`Affiliates will keep confidential all terms and conditions of the agreement” and claims
`competitive harm if these terms and conditions are unsealed because they “could be used by
`competitors” (Dkt. Nos. 98 ¶¶ 5–6; 99-1 ¶¶ 5–7; 105 ¶¶ 4–6). These reasons fail to show a
`compelling reason.
`First, the conclusory assertion of competitive harm and boilerplate speculation that the
`terms and conditions could be used by competitors are far from specific factual findings that
`overcome the strong presumption in favor of access. Second, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(b)
`and (d), confidentiality designations and agreements between the parties do not establish that a
`document is sealable. Third, the requests seek to seal large swaths of briefing and are thus far
`from “narrowly tailored,” as required under Rule 79-5(b). Fourth, the patent transfer agreement
`has already been unsealed and publicly disclosed (save for AMD’s bank account information)
`(see Case No. 18-1680, Dkt. No. 41-1), and the terms have already been publicly discussed in
`the order granting the motions to dismiss (see, e.g., Case No. 17-5458, Dkt. No. 96 at 3–4, 7,
`9–10). The parties shall file unredacted versions of the documents at issue on the public docket
`by OCTOBER 4 AT NOON.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: September 28, 2019.
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
