Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

The document at issue is the Court’s order regarding the parties’ motions for summary judgment, which concerns infringement of the asserted patents.

VLSI argues that blue-highlighted information should be sealed because “[t]he disclosure of these details, including proprietary contractual terms and practices, would significantly harm VLSI’s business and licensing efforts, including by interfering with VLSI’s ability to license its patent portfolio to other companies in the semiconductor industry by giving Intel, and other potential counterparties, an unfair advantage in future negotiations with VLSI.” Id. at 4.

The parties bolster these arguments by providing additional details in the declarations of Mark Selwyn and Charlotte Wen.

June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.).

The Court has not received chambers copies of 1.

VLSI’s Opposition to Intel’s Omnibus Daubert Motion and corresponding exhibits.

Intel’s Reply in Support of it Omnibus Daubert Motion and corresponding exhibits.

Intel’s Opposition to VLSI’s Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts and corresponding exhibits.

The parties SHALL file fully unredacted chambers copies in compliance with this Court’s Standing Order Re Civil Cases § IX by no later than December 22, 2023.

Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

The parties argue that compelling reasons exist to seal the material it seeks to seal because “[k]nowledge of this information by third parties would put Intel at a competitive disadvantage in future product development and in its business dealings as its competitors could incorporate that information into their own development strategies and products to gain an unfair advantage over Intel in the market.” ECF No. 776.

Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.).

Green highlighted portions on page 15 at lines 13 and 21 reveal non-public highly confidential technical information regarding the manufacturing processes of certain Intel product prior art.