Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Microchip Technology, Inc., et al v. United Module Corp. et al, No. 2:11-cv-00332 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2011)

Granted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:11-cv-00332, Dkt. No. 57
Decided
February 28, 2011
Judge
Koh, J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER Granting 51 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Limited Portion of Reply
Length
3 pages

1 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. 157781

jim@agilityiplaw.com

2 MONICA MUCCHETTI ENO, State Bar No. 164107

monica@agilityiplaw.com

3 THERESA E. NORTON, State Bar No. 193530

tess@agilityiplaw.com

4 AGILITY IP LAW

1900 University Circle, Suite 201

5 East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Telephone: (650) 227-4800

6 Facsimile: (650) 318-3483 7 Attorneys for Defendant

KERANOS, LLC

8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 SAN JOSE DIVISION

12 13 MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC. and Related Cases:

SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

14 CASE NO.: CV-10-04241-LHK

Plaintiffs,

15 CASE NO.: CV-10-05196-LHK

v.

16 CASE NO.: CV-10-05290-LHK

UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,

17 LLC, CASE NO.: CV-11-00430-LHK

18 Defendants.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 19 DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCOR, INC.,

REQUEST TO FILE PORTIONS OF NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., and

20 DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL

ANALOG DEVICES, INC.

21

Plaintiffs,

Date: March 3, 2011 22 Time: 1:30 p.m.

v.

Courtroom: Courtroom 4, 5th floor 23 Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS, LLC,

24

Defendants.

25 26 27

21 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., TSMC NORTH

2 AMERICA, and UBICOM, INC., 3 Plaintiffs, 4 v. 5 UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,

LLC,

6

Defendants.

7 8 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11

UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,

12 LLC,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

31 Now before the Court is Defendant Keranos, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Administrative 2 Request to File Portions of Document Under Seal. Upon consideration of the motion, and of the 3 supporting declaration of Theresa E. Norton filed therewith, the Court finds there to be good 4 cause for granting Defendant’s request to file under seal. 5 GOOD CAUSE having been shown, the Court finds that: 6 1. Defendant possesses overriding confidentiality interests that overcome the right of 7 public access to the record to the following portions of Defendant Keranos, LLC’s Reply in 8 Support of Motions to Dismiss: page 7, lines 18-26, and footnote 3 on page 7. 9 2. Defendant’s overriding confidentiality interests support sealing the record; 10 3. A substantial probability exists that Defendant’s overriding confidentiality 11 interests will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; 12 4. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and 13 5. No less restrictive means exist to achieve this overriding interest. 14 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Keranos, LLC’s Administrative Request 16 to File Portions of Document Under Seal is GRANTED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 20

February 28, 2011

21 DATED: ______________________ _________________________________

The Honorable Lucy H. Koh 22

United States District Court Judge 23 24 25 26 27

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S -1- CASE NO. 10-CV-04241-LHK

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Microchip Technology, Inc., et al v. United Module Corp. et al, No. 2:11-cv-00332 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2011).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_11-cv-00332-9
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_11-cv-00332-9

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.