Search court records - party Craig Allison, page 5

29 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC § 318a

Document IPR2022-00818, No. 29 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC § 318a (P.T.A.B. Oc...

But in some 17 IPR2022-00818 Patent 8,378,875 B2 instances “none of the proposed preset code sets includes all IR or RF codes for all features of the device and, as a result, the user cannot make full use of the capabilities of the ...

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
Analyze Party
- Roku
Analyze Firm
- Dickinson Wright
- Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

No. 729 ORDER GRANTING 573 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD ...

Document VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, 5:17-cv-05671, No. 729 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 16, 2023)

Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”).

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

Furthermore, as green-boxed portions of pages 7, 10, and 11 reveal highly confidential information regarding the financial benefit to Intel of certain features and Intel’s costs.

Furthermore, green-boxed portions of pages 230 (paragraph 580) reveal highly confidential analysis regarding the financial benefit to Intel of certain features.

Cite Document

Analyze

No. 726 ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE ...

Document VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, 5:17-cv-05671, No. 726 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 16, 2023)

for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”).

Disclosure of this information could cause significant competitive and business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and other potential license counterparties.

Granted, as the blue-highlighted portions contain discussions of and references to highly confidential and proprietary damages analyses and methodologies for the patents-in-suit, public disclosure of which could result in significant competitive and business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and other potential license counterparties.

Northern District of California United States District Court D. ECF No. 566 The following non-parties were served (ECF No. 610), but did not file declarations in support of this administrative motion: Allied Security Trust I (AST), Verayo, Inc., P&IB Co., Ltd., Contour Semiconductor, Inc., Luminescent Technologies, Inc., Foundation for Advancement of International Science (FAIS), Casio Computer Co. Ltd.

Cite Document

Analyze

No. 728 ORDER Concerning the Portions of Dr. Sullivan's Expert Report to be Stricken

Document VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, 5:17-cv-05671, No. 728 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 16, 2023)

However, the parties were unable to reach a consensus on which portions of the report were subject to the Court’s order.

Reviewing the motion to strike and subsequent briefing reveals Intel’s requests are overbroad.

Intel instead takes issue with Dr. Sullivan’s use of “facts ... that VLSI never disclosed it would use to calculate damages.” ECF 507 at 2 (emphasis added).

The parties’ agreed upon annotations do just that – they exclude Sullivan’s use of this information to calculate damages based on the NPV and VPU theories.

Moreover, Intel’s concern that VLSI may “circumvent this Court’s order” is assuaged by VLSI’s representations that it may use such facts for the limited purpose of showing that Intel recognized the accused technology had financial benefits.

Cite Document

Analyze