`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANALOG DEVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XILINX, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 19-2225-RGA
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`I have reviewed the parties’ letters concerning protective order disputes. (D.I. 44, 45).
`
`On the first dispute, relating to ¶30(a), access by non-attorneys to confidential
`
`information, I agree with Analog. I note that in support of their respective positions, Analog
`
`submits prior decisions by other judges of this Court in contested matters, and Xilinx submits
`
`agreed-upon orders that I signed. The former carry weight; the latter do not.
`
`
`
`On the second dispute, relating to ¶40, in terms of the number of continuous pages
`
`presumption, I agree with Analog. I note that the Analog proposal is only a presumption, and
`
`thus it is an issue that the parties may need to revisit in particular instances. In terms of the total
`
`number of pages, where Analog has accused two products and Xilinx has accused forty-one
`
`products, I do not see how Analog’s proposal makes sense. If Analog needs 400 printed pages to
`
`prove infringement by two products, how is 400 pages going to be enough for Xilinx? Analog
`
`does not say. I will take each side’s argument as to what they need at face value. Analog is
`
`permitted 200 pages per accused product. Xilinx is permitted 100 pages per accused product.
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02225-RGA Document 48 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2274
`
`
`
`The parties should submit a revised proposal consistent with these decisions, and I will
`
`sign it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of April 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard G. Andrews____
`United States District Judge
`
`
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
