New Pacer--DEFENDANTS TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD. AND ALLIACENSE
LTD.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF BARCO’S
MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF TPL’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD. AND ALLIACENSE
LTD.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF BARCO’S
MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF TPL’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

Judge: Hon. James Ware
HTC CORPORATION and HTC
AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, defendants Technology Properties Ltd. and
Alliacense Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby move for an order sealing designated portions of: (1) Barco’s Motion to Strike Portions of TPL’s Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336; U.S. Patent No. 5,440,749; and U.S. Patent No. 5,530,890 (“Barco’s Motion to Strike”); and (2) certain exhibits in support of Barco’s motion. The Court should seal the particular portions of these documents for which Defendants seek protection because they contain confidential information. The Court can seal court documents when they contain “confidential . . . development . . . or commercial information.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006) (court has “good cause” to seal documents containing material protected by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)(1)(G) (protecting trade secrets and “other confidential . . . development . . . or commercial information”)). Although most of the material Barco redacted in the public version of its Motion to Strike does not contain confidential information. There is some confidential information on page 8 (in the chart located on lines 6-25) of Barco’s Motion to Strike (which Defendants have designated). In addition, the following exhibits Barco filed in support of its Motion to Strike are also confidential: D-1 through D-11, E-1 through E-4, F-1 through F-4, and G-1. These exhibits contain product reports and reverse engineering reports that Alliacense uses in its licensing
operation, and which contain detailed proprietary information that derives its value largely from the fact that the information is kept confidential. See M. Leckrone Decl. In Supp. of Defs.’ Admin. Mot. to Seal Portions of Their Opp. to the Mot. of Barco For Summ. J. & of the Oklobdzija Decl. (filed Feb. 4, 2011) (“Leckrone Decl.,” filed herewith as Exhibit A), ¶¶ 2-8. Revealing this information publicly would harm Alliacense’s efforts to license its patent portfolio. Exhibit A, ¶¶ 6–8. The Court previously ordered information from Alliacense’s product reports to be sealed. See Order Granting Barco’s Admin. Mot. to Seal, Dkt. 128. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(“designating party must file . . . declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable . . . or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality”).
Date: December 16, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
AGILITY IP LAW, LLP
/s/ James C. Otteson
James C. Otteson
Attorney for Defendants TECHNOLOGY
PROPERTIES LIMITED and ALLIACENSE LIMITED