Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1573
MOTION for Leave to File Reply to 1556 Reuters America LLC's Opposition to Motions to Seal Trial and Pretrial Evidence filed by Qualcomm Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David A. Kays, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of David A. Kays, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Kays, David) (Filed on 8/3/2012) Modified on 8/6/2012 linking entry to document #1556 (dhm, COURT STAFF).
EXHIBIT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DAVID KAYS, ESQ. (SBN 120798)
FREEDA LUGO, ESQ. (SBN 244913 )
MORGAN, FRANICH, FREDKIN & MARSH
99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1000
San Jose, California 95113-1613
Telephone: (408) 288-8288
Facsimile: (408) 288-8325
ROGER G. BROOKS, Pro Hac Vice
CRAVATH, SWAIN & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019-7475
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
Attorneys for Non-Party,
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN JOSE DIVISION
14
APPLE INC., a California corporation,,
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
15
Plaintiffs,
16
vs.
17
18
19
20
21
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
NON-PARTY QUALCOMM
INCORPORATED'S REPLY TO
THIRD PARTY REUTERS
AMERICA LLC'S OPPOSITION TO
MOTIONS TO SEAL TRIAL AND
PRETRIAL EVIDENCE
Defendants.
22
23
Reuters’ generic argument in favor of forced disclosure of all terms of licensing
24
agreements rests on (a) the non-sequitur that “If there is a public interest in understanding
25
how our patent system works,” then license terms should be disclosed, and (b) the truism
26
that disclosure “would increase everyone’s access to information”. (Reuters Opp’n at 18.)
27
So it would, but the law recognizes that that is not always a good or fair result. Reuters
28
cites no law, and instead invites the Court to rely on broad economic theories and policy
1
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Case No: 11-CV-01846-LHK
QUALCOMM'S REPLY TO REUTERS AMERICA LLC'S OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO SEAL TRIAL AND PRETRIAL EVIDENCE
1
arguments to compel disclosure even if that disclosure will hurt the competitive and
2
commercial interests of non-parties—innocent bystanders—to the litigation. (Id. at 19.)
3
We believe that the relevant facts and law have been adequately laid out in the opening
4
papers of Qualcomm and other affected non-parties, and will not revisit those issues.
5
However, Reuters also asserts that Qualcomm’s motion to seal is “moot” “because
6
the licensing terms involved were disclosed in [its] initial filings”. (Id. at 19.) It is correct
7
that Qualcomm’s motion was initially in error not filed under seal. That, however, has
8
been corrected: following the proper procedure, at the earliest possible moment on July
9
30, Qualcomm notified the ECF HelpDesk for the Northern District of California that
10
Attachment 2 had been filed incorrectly. Following the District’s published procedures,
11
Docket Item 1394 was immediately locked, and Qualcomm filed an Administrative Motion
12
to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document on that same date, which is currently pending. In
13
short, Qualcomm’s confidential information is not now publicly available through this
14
Court’s records or on PACER.
15
As the very existence of this Court’s procedure for removing incorrectly filed
16
documents from public access reflects, confidentiality is not a black and white, once lost,
17
never regained matter; there are degrees of accessibility. It is true that Reuters sent out a
18
very brief wire report containing some of Qualcomm’s inadvertently disclosed confidential
19
information on Monday, July 30, even after the document had been removed from public
20
access on PACER. However, as the Court is aware, license agreements may remain in
21
effect for many years. Five years from now, a competitor or licensee seeking to gain an
22
advantage by obtaining otherwise confidential information about Qualcomm’s license
23
terms with Samsung may or may not stumble across that transient and by then ancient-
24
history Reuters wire report; they are almost certain to look to and find the docket of this
25
extremely high profile litigation.
26
sealing Qualcomm’s confidential information in this Court’s record still matters in the real
27
world.
28
In other words, despite the inadvertent disclosure,
For this reason, Qualcomm’s motion is not moot, and Qualcomm respectfully
2
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Case No: 11-CV-01846-LHK
QUALCOMM'S REPLY TO REUTERS AMERICA LLC'S OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO SEAL TRIAL AND PRETRIAL EVIDENCE
1
requests that the Court order the sealing of documents disclosing the financial details of its
2
licensing agreements with Samsung, as set forth in more detail in its opening brief.
3
4
Dated: August 3, 2012
5
MORGAN, FRANICH, FREDKIN & MARSH
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
6
By:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Case No: 11-CV-01846-LHK
QUALCOMM'S REPLY TO REUTERS AMERICA LLC'S OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO SEAL TRIAL AND PRETRIAL EVIDENCE
/S/
DAVID KAYS
Attorneys for Non-Party
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
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?