Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation et al
Filing
348
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part and denying in part 335 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 336 Motion to Amend/Correct ; ; granting in part and denying in part 342 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA,
INC.,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiff,
v.
STRYKER CORPORATION, et al.,
Case No.14-cv-00876-RS (JSC)
ORDER RE: STRYKER'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY
CONTENTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 335, 336, 342
Defendants.
12
13
Defendants Stryker Corporation and Stryker Communications, Inc. (together, “Stryker”)
14
move to amend its invalidity contentions to include (1) Karl Storz’s Telecam, Tricam, and
15
Endovision XL endoscopic video cameras as state-of-the-art-references; (2) the Endovision XL
16
endoscopic video camera as a basis for obviousness; (3) additional support for Stryker’s existing
17
contentions regarding the Alpha O.R. system; (4) additional installations of the Alpha O.R. system
18
as reasons why claims 3 and 81 of the ’420 patent are obvious; and (5) additional support for
19
Stryker’s existing contentions regarding KSEA’s installation of the claimed subject matter of the
20
’420 patent at UCLA’s CASIT facility. (Dkt. No. 336 at 4:15-22.) At oral argument on December
21
21, 2017, Stryker withdrew amendment number two pertaining to the Endovision XL camera.
22
Plaintiff Karl Storz Endoscopy-America (KSEA) does not oppose amendments three, four, or five.
23
(Dkt. No. 343 at 4, n.2.) Therefore, Stryker’s request to include amendments three, four, and five
24
is GRANTED. Request one is DENIED for the reasons stated on the record.
25
Stryker moves to file under seal exhibits 4, 10, 15, and 26 to the Carrozza Declaration.
26
(Dkt. No. 335.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, KSEA filed a declaration clarifying that only
27
portions of exhibits 4, 10, and 15 contain KSEA’s confidential information, and that exhibit 26
28
need not be filed under seal as it does not contain any of KSEA’s confidential information. (Dkt.
1
No. 340.)
2
KSEA moves to file under seal portions of its opposition brief and exhibits C, D, E, H, I,
3
and K in their entirety. (Dkt. No. 342.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, Stryker responded to
4
KSEA’s motion, clarifying that portions of exhibit E are publicly available and requesting that the
5
Court file only exhibit E’s nonpublic information under seal. (Dkt. No. 345.)
6
The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions and Rule 79-5 declarations and agrees the
documents disclose confidential business information. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) (sealing is
8
appropriate only where the requesting party “establishes that the document, or portions thereof is
9
privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”);
10
Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1161- 62 (9th Cir. 2011) (a party may meet their
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
burden to show a document is privileged by establishing the information contains trade secrets that
12
create a risk of significant competitive injury and particularized harm). Therefore, the Court
13
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Stryker and KSEA’s motions to file under seal. The
14
redacted portions of exhibits 4, 10, and 15 shall be filed under seal. Exhibit 26 shall not be filed
15
under seal as it does not contain KSEA’s confidential information. The redacted portions of
16
KSEA’s opposition shall be filed under seal. Exhibits C, D, H, I, and K shall be filed under seal in
17
their entirety. Exhibit E shall filed under seal with Stryker’s proposed redactions containing non-
18
public information.
19
This Order disposes of Docket. Nos. 335, 336, and 342.
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 21, 2017
23
24
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?