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

Filing 1390

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Non-Party Microsoft Corporation's Motion to Seal Terms of Confidential License Agreement filed by Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Durrance, Nathaniel) (Filed on 7/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Ramsey M. Al-Salam, WA Bar No. 18822
[e-mail]
Nathaniel E. Durrance, CA Bar No. 229210
[e-mail]
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Attorneys for Non-Party
MICROSOFT CORPORATION

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
United Stated Dictrict Court
For the Northern District of California

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited company,

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NONPARTY MICROSOFT CORPORATION'S
MOTION TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL
LICENSE AND TERMS
Judge:

Honorable Lucy H. Koh

18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5 and this Court's Order Regarding Third Party
Motions to Seal, ECF 1288 dated July 23, 2012, Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) filed a
motion for the Court to seal and otherwise protect from public disclosure terms of a confidential

23
license agreement ("Confidential Agreement") between Microsoft and Samsung Electronics Co.
24
25

Ltd. ("Samsung"). More specifically, Microsoft requested that the Confidential Agreement and

26

its terms be treated as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY" under

27

Section 9 of the Protective Order (ECF 687).

28
[PROPOSED] ORDER

-1-

1

Confidential license agreements, such as the one that is the subject of this request, are

2

considered trade secrets in the Ninth Circuit and qualify for protection from public disclosure

3

under the "compelling reasons" test. In its filing and supporting documents, Microsoft has

4
demonstrated that it is entitled to have the Court seal and prevent from public disclosure the
5
6

Confidential Agreement and its terms, including in Court documents, trial exhibits, and
testimony. This includes sealing of the license terms summary from the Microsoft/Samsung

8

Confidential Agreement found in Trial Exhibit 630, Expert Report of David Teece, submitted by

9
United Stated Dictrict Court
For the Northern District of California

7

Samsung in this case.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

(1)

The Confidential Agreement and its terms be treated as "HIGHLY

12
13
14
15

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY" under Section 9 of the Protective Order (ECF
687).
(2)

The terms of the Confidential Agreement in Exhibits 3A and 3B to Trial Exhibit

16

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

17

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

18

(3)

Testimony and trial exhibits offered during trial regarding the Confidential

19
Agreement or its terms be redacted and sealed from the public record.
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

DATED: _______________, 2012
HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH
United States District Court Judge

24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER

-2-