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

Filing 1491

Supplemental Submission in Support of 1400 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits, Close Courtroom and Seal Portions of Transcript) filed by Motorola Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Related document(s) 1400 ) (Golinveaux, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/30/2012) Modified text on 7/31/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DAVID S. BLOCH (SBN: 184530)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER A. GOLINVEAUX (SBN: 203056)
[e-mail]
MARCUS T. HALL (SBN: 206495)
[e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5894
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
PETER J. CHASSMAN (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
[e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
1111 Louisiana, 25th Floor
Houston, TX 77002-5242
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Non-Party,
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

APPLE, INC., a California Corporation,

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

CASE NO.: 11-CV-01846-LHK

SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN
SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY
MOTION BY NONPARTY
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC TO
SEAL EXHIBITS, CLOSE
COURTROOM, AND SEAL
PORTIONS OF TRANSCRIPT
[Civ. L.R. 79-5]
Date: Expedited Request
Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

27
28
SUPP. SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOT’N BY NONPARTY MOTOROLA TO SEAL
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

On Friday, July 27, 2012, the Court held a case management conference. During that

2

conference, among other things, the Court discussed motions filed by various third parties, which

3

included the Emergency Motion by Nonparty Motorola Mobility LLC to Seal Exhibits, Close

4

Courtroom, and Seal Portions of Transcript (Dkt. No. 1400) (“Motorola’s Motion”). During the

5

conference, the Court ruled that third parties, including Motorola could file supplemental

6

declarations to establish that documents concerning expired license agreements should be

7

entitled to trade secret protection:

8
9

The Court: So far as the third parties are concerned, your request to protect
those, you know, royalty rate and the no payment term, compensation term,
however it’s structured and the duration pricing, that’s fine.

10

Mr. Hemminger: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

11

The Court: So any of the other third party who wishes to be heard?

12

Mr. McCauley: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Robert McCauley on behalf of
Philips Electronics.

13

I’m sorry, Your Honor. There’s been some discussion about licenses that have
been expired and I’m wondering whether, in view of the Court’s comments that
you just made, the staleness issue, as the Court called it, is not going to override a
declaration that says that this is competitively sensitive information, and that if it
were acquired by competitors, it could irreparably harm, for instance, my client.

14
15
16
17

The Court: If you can make the appropriate showing in your declaration that the
expiration of the license is not dispositive, yeah, that’s right.

18

Transcript of Case Management Conference at 27:15-28:14 (July 27, 2012), Apple v. Samsung,

19

No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal.). The Court invited third parties to make supplemental

20

submissions in support of their motions to seal: “The Court: So who wants to redo their sealing

21

motion, other than the two parties and Intel? Anyone else? Or is everyone else satisfied with

22

what they have submitted?” Id. at 29:20-23. Motorola sought and was granted approval to

23

supplement its motion to seal. Id. at 35:23-36:6. See also Minute Order and Case Management

24

Order (Dkt. No. 1426) at p. 2 (the Court ordered that “Intel, and possibly RIM, IBM, Motorola

25

Mobility, and Philips may also file supplemental declarations in support of the motions to seal by

26

July 30, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.”).

27

In accordance with the Court’s rulings, Motorola submits herewith the Declaration of

28

Brian C. Blasius in further support of Motorola’s Motion (“Blasius Decl.”). This declaration,
-1SUPP. SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOT’N BY NONPARTY MOTOROLA TO SEAL
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

and the Declaration of Thomas V. Miller filed on July 26, 2012, Dkt. No. 1400-1, establish that

2

disclosure of the sensitive terms of the license agreements between Motorola and Samsung that

3

are identified in Samsung’s proposed Trial Exhibits Nos. 77, 630, and 631, even though the

4

referenced licenses are now expired, as well as analogous information in proposed Trial Exhibit

5

No. 82 would be harmful to Motorola Mobility in its ongoing licensing activities. See Blasius

6

Decl. Rather than restating the contents of the Blasius Declaration, Motorola refers the Court to

7

that Declaration. Accordingly, Motorola renews the request set forth in its Motion.

8
9

Dated: July 30, 2012

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

10
11
12
13
14

By: /s/ Jennifer A. Golinveaux
David S. Bloch
Jennifer A. Golinveaux
Marcus T. Hall
Peter J. Chassman (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Attorneys for Non-Party,
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2SUPP. SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOT’N BY NONPARTY MOTOTOLA TO SEAL
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK