Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1340

Administrative Motion to Partially File Under Seal filed by Koninklijki Philips Electronics N.V.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Third Party Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.'s Administrative Motion to Partially File Under Seal, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Gary C. Ma in Support of Third Party Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.'s Administrative Motion to Partially File Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit A to the Declaration of Gary C. Ma in Support of Third Party Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.'s Administrative Motion to Partially File Under Seal, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Michael Marion in Support of Third Party Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.'s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal)(Ma, Gary) (Filed on 7/25/2012) Modified on 7/26/2012 pursuant to General Order No. 62 attachement #2 and #4 sealed (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1 Robert F. McCauley (State Bar No. 162056)
[e-mail]
2 Gary C. Ma (State Bar No. 221294)
[e-mail]
3 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
4 Stanford Research Park
3300 Hillview Avenue
5 Palo Alto, California 94304-1203
Telephone: [phone]
6 Facsimile: [phone]
7 Attorneys for Third Party
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
11

APPLE, INC., a California Corporation,

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

12
Plaintiff,

13
v.
14

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
15 Korean Corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
16
Corporation; SAMSUNG
17 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,
18
Defendants.
19

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
THIRD-PARTY KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
PARTIALLY FILE UNDER SEAL

Judge: Honorable Lucy H. Koh

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1
2
3
4
5
6

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Third Party Koninklijke Philips Electronics
N.V. (“Philips”) moves the Court for leave to (1) partially file under seal portions of Exhibit A to the
Declaration of Gary C. Ma in Support of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.’s Motion to File
Under Seal (“Exhibit A”) and (2) if Trial Exhibit 630 is offered and admitted into evidence during
trial in this case, that certain portions of that exhibit be sealed and a version with those portions
redacted be entered into the public record.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court recognizes that documents that are to be part of the judicial record must meet the
“compelling reasons” standard in order to be sealed. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Under that standard, the court must “articulate the factual basis for
its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434
(9th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, “a district court must weigh relevant factors, base its decision on a
compelling reason, and articulate a factual basis for its ruling without relying on hypothesis or
conjecture.” Dish Network L.L.C. v. Sonicview USA, Inc., 2009 WL 2224596, *7 (S.D. Cal. July 23,
2009). At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court has explained that “the right to inspect and copy
judicial records is not absolute,” and that “the common-law right of inspection has bowed before the
power of a court to insure that its records are not used . . . as sources of business information that
might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598
(1978).
Philips has established in the Declaration of Michael Marion that there are compelling
reasons to seal the text under the “Payments” column headingsin (1) each ofthe charts in Exhibit A
to the Ma Declaration supporting Philips’ motion to seal, and (2) the corresponding text in the charts
found in Exhibits 3A and 3B to Trial Exhibit 630. Specifically, those portions of Exhibit A and Trial
Exhibit 630 contain confidential financial terms to Philips’ license agreements with others. This
information constitutes trade secrets that would cause Philips irreparable harm if publicly disclosed.
Marion Decl. ¶¶ 3 and 4, see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2008).
Additionally, because the financial terms of the Philips licenses are, at best, only tangentially related
to the underlying causes of action, there is very little public interest in making those terms publicly
available. MMI, Inc. v. Baja, Inc., 743 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1106 (D. Ariz. 2010).
-1-

[PROPOSED ] ORDER
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

(1)

3
4

The text under the “Payments” column headings in Exhibit A to the Ma Declaration

supporting Philips’ motion to seal be filed under seal;
(2)

The text under the “Payments” column headings in Exhibits 3A and 3B to Trial

5

Exhibit 630 (to the extent the text relates to licenses involving Philips) be redacted from the public

6

record if that exhibit is offered and admitted into evidence at trial in this matter. .

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Dated: _________________, 2012

___________________________________
Hon. Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 5:10-cv-03428-PSG