Plantronics, Inc. v. ALIPH, INC. et al

Filing 311

ORDER RE SEALING MOTION (DKT. NO. 308) by Hon. William Alsup denying 308 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
PLANTRONICS, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. C 09-01714 WHA

v.
ALIPH, INC., et al.,

ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
(DKT. NO. 308)

Defendants.
/

15
16

Defendants move to seal the entirety of three exhibits in support of its opposition to

17

plaintiff’s motion in limine, rather than propose sealing narrowly tailored redactions. Many

18

portions of these exhibits are not sealable. For example, the following paragraph in Exhibit A

19

cannot possibly be sealable:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

However, I understand that it is further necessary to address the
issue of the existence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes for
the patented technology, and whether the patented technology
forms the basis of demand for the relevant product sales. The fact
that the patented technology is used on only some of the products
in the premium market provides evidence about demand for that
technology. The ’453 Patent relates to stabilizing earbud
technology that is incorporated into the earbuds used with the
accused Aliph Jawbone headsets.
This excerpt in Exhibit B is also not sealable:
Q. Okay. So you regard the use of the ear loop with the round
earbud that originally came with the JB2 as a non-infringing
alternative; correct?
A. It -- I have been asked to assume that that is a non-infringing
alternative, yes.

1

Q. Do you regard it as such?

2

A. I do.

3

5

Q. Okay. Where did you do any calculations that are based on that
technology, namely, the round earbud and the ear loop? Did you
do any calculations to show what that but-for world would look
like if Aliph used the round earbud and the ear loop -- I’m going to
withdraw that question. May I -- may I ask you another question?

6

A. Certainly.

7

Q. Okay. The round earbud that originally came with the JB2 and
the ear loop is a non-infringing alternative; true?

4

8
A. That’s my understanding, yes.
9
(Lynde Dep. 95:24–96:17). This paragraph in Exhibit C is also not sealable:
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Should the patent in suit be found valid, enforceable and infringed,
I understand Plantronics may not be granted an injunction and the
Court may instead instruct that the parties enter into a license for
the patents-in-suit. Should this occur, I may be asked to provide
additional information or data, beyond what has been considered in
this report, which may assist in determining royalties. The type of
additional information which may be relevant to such an analysis
would include, but not be limited to, accused sales, market data,
information on current alternatives available to the defendants
and/or in the marketplace, any license agreements and/or offers not
already considered.

16
The request to seal the entirety of Exhibits A, B, and C is DENIED. Defendants may file an
17
administrative motion for leave to file under seal narrowly tailored redactions in accordance
18
with governing case law (and with an appropriate declaration) for Exhibits A, B, and C by
19
DECEMBER 24 AT NOON. As previously stated, aggressive application of redactions will be
20
looked upon with disfavor. Both sides have now had an opportunity to propose narrowly
21
tailored redactions. The parties should be mindful of Local Rule 79-5(b) and related case law.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: December 19, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2