Case: 25-117 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 02/26/2025
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In Re MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., MICRON
`CONSUMER PRODUCTS, GROUP, LLC.,
`Petitioners
`______________________
`
`2025-117
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Northern District of California in No.
`3:23-cv-05792-RFL, Judge Rita F. Lin.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before TARANTO, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
`STARK, Circuit Judge.
`
`O R D E R
` Micron Technology Inc. and Micron Consumer Prod-
`ucts Group, LLC (collectively, “Micron”) petition for a writ
`of mandamus directing the United States District Court for
`the Northern District of California to reverse its discovery
`order requiring Micron to produce in paper format 73 pages
`of what it characterizes as highly confidential source code.
`Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. (“YMTC”)
`and Yangtze Memory Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “re-
`spondents”) oppose. We deny the petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 25-117 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 02/26/2025
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC.
`
`BACKGROUND
`YMTC filed this suit alleging Micron’s 3D NAND prod-
`
`ucts infringe YMTC’s patents.1 At the parties’ request, the
`magistrate judge entered an agreed-upon protective order
`governing discovery. The order gives a limited group of
`people (including outside counsel, experts, and court per-
`sonnel) access and review of source code. Appx269–70.
`Employees and officers of the parties are prohibited.
`In addition to allowing for inspection on a secure com-
`puter, the order contemplated the ability to request and re-
`ceive source code in paper copy format:
`At the request of the Receiving Party, and sub-
`ject to any export control restrictions, the Pro-
`ducing Party shall provide paper copies
`(“Original Printouts”) of portions of the materi-
`als on the Secure Computer that is requested by
`the Receiving Party and is reasonably necessary
`to facilitate the Receiving Party’s preparation of
`court filings, pleadings, expert reports, or other
`papers, or for deposition or trial.2
`Several provisions facilitate access and limit risk of dis-
`closure of such materials. Section 9(j) limits printing to no
`more than “1500 pages—including no more than 30 consec-
`utive pages” and allows objections to be raised with the
`court. Appx276. Section 9(l) requires the receiving party
`to “maintain a record of any individual who has inspected
`any portion of the source code” and for any person receiving
`a copy to “maintain and store any paper copies of the ma-
`terial at their offices in a manner that prevents duplication
`of or unauthorized access.” Appx276–77. And section 9(m)
`
`
`1 Micron asserted patent infringement counter-
`claims against respondents.
`2 Appx275–76.
`
`

`

`Case: 25-117 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 02/26/2025
`
`IN RE MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC.
`
` 3
`
`requires paper copies to be destroyed if no longer in use.
`Appx277.
` Under the terms of the order, respondents requested
`paper copies of 73 pages of source code materials related to
`Micron’s fabrication processes used to manufacture Mi-
`cron’s 3D NAND products and the arrangement of fabri-
`cated elements of the products. Appx335. In November
`2024, Micron filed its objections at the district court to
`providing such printed materials, noting that the material
`was considered its “most secure and sensitive Source Code”
`and that the threat of theft was “very real,” as evidenced
`by a prior theft of its technology by a Taiwanese company.
`Id. Micron argued that the request was excessive and not
`reasonably necessary for case preparation. Appx336.
` On December 12, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered
`Micron to provide the requested printouts to YMTC’s out-
`side counsel, concluding that the request, within the “pre-
`sumptive limits” of the agreed-upon protective order, was
`“thoughtful and focused on materials needed for case prep-
`aration.” Appx3. While recognizing the importance of the
`source code to Micron, the magistrate judge determined
`that the “strong protections” in the protective order were
`sufficient to safeguard against any risk of unauthorized
`disclosure. Id. Micron then moved the district judge for
`relief, arguing, among other things, the magistrate judge’s
`order raised national security and foreign policy concerns
`given that YMTC is a Chinese state-owned company that
`the government has placed on a restricted export list.
`Appx363, 367. On January 14, 2025, the district court de-
`nied Micron’s motion. This petition followed.
`DISCUSSION
`Although a writ of mandamus may be used to protect
`
`confidential and sensitive information, see In re United
`States, 669 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the remedy is
`available only in “exceptional circumstances amounting to
`a judicial usurpation of power . . . or a clear abuse of
`
`

`

`Case: 25-117 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 02/26/2025
`
`
`
`IN RE MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC.
`
`iscretion,” see Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S.
`367, 380 (2004) (cleaned up). The petitioner seeking the
`writ must generally show a clear and indisputable right to
`issuance of the writ, that it has no other adequate method
`of attaining the desired relief, and that “the writ is appro-
`priate under the circumstances.” Id. at 380–81. Micron
`has not satisfied that standard.
`The district court reasonably determined respondents’
`discovery request was not excessive or unreasonable and
`that the protective order is sufficient to prevent against du-
`plication or unauthorized access. The request was for not
`more than 11 consecutive pages, well below the limit of 30
`consecutive pages the parties agreed in the protective order
`YMTC could request, and was for a total of 73 pages, a
`small fraction of the limit of 1500 printed pages contem-
`plated by that same order. Appx2–3.
`Micron argues the district court failed to weigh the se-
`curity concerns it raised to such access. We disagree. The
`record indicates both the magistrate judge and the district
`court judge considered the nature of the source code in
`question and potential risks. The magistrate judge’s order,
`which the district judge described as well-reasoned, refers
`to Micron’s own characterizations of the value of the infor-
`mation, and both judges gave plausible reasons for finding
`the threat of disclosure minimal. See, e.g., Appx3 (noting
`“the strong protections in the protective order that will ap-
`ply to the print outs”); Appx375 (“Moreover, the protective
`order includes sufficient procedures to prevent duplication
`or unauthorized access to the material.”).
`Consistent with the protective order, the district
`court’s discovery order requires protection of the printed
`source code material to outside counsel, not to YMTC itself.
`The protective order prohibits YMTC from viewing the ma-
`terial. Micron’s suspicion that counsel will fail to comply
`with the order and will instead allow the printouts to fall
`into the hands of its client is unsupported by anything
`
`4 d
`
`

`

`Case: 25-117 Document: 13 Page: 5 Filed: 02/26/2025
`
`IN RE MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC.
`
` 5
`
`other than speculation. In effect, Micron is arguing the dis-
`trict court should have given more weight to the security
`and foreign policy risks that its source code could “fall[] into
`the wrong hands” through unauthorized disclosure to
`YMTC. Pet. at 35. However, we are not prepared to dis-
`turb the trial court’s balancing of the interests on limited
`mandamus review based merely on Micron’s conjecture
`that an individual might violate the protective order and
`subject themselves to appropriate sanctions.3
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`The petition is denied.
`
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 26, 2025
` Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Given YMTC’s assertion that “Micron’s petition
`does not show or even say that the source code at issue here
`is subject to the” Export Administration Regulations,
`YMTC Resp. at 18 n.4, we trust that, if YMTC comes to
`take the view that it is not so subject and plans to act on
`that view, it will provide appropriate notice to Micron in
`time to permit Micron to raise the issue to the district court
`before YMTC acts on that view.
`
`