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

Filing 1613

OBJECTIONS to re 1597 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING A PROCEDURE FOR REDUCING THE NUMBER OF SEALING REQUESTS by Research In Motion Corporation, Research In Motion Ltd.. (Lange, Jonathan) (Filed on 8/8/2012)

1 IRELL & MANELLA LLP
Andrei Iancu (184973)
2 [e-mail]
Alan J. Heinrich (212782)
3 [e-mail]
David A. Schwarz (159376)
4 [e-mail]
Jonathan Lange (238056)
5 [e-mail]
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
6 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
Telephone: [phone]
7 Facsimile: [phone]
8 Attorneys for Nonparties
Research In Motion Corporation and
9 Research In Motion Ltd.
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

14
vs.

15

16 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
17 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
18 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
19
Defendants.
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
NONPARTIES RESEARCH IN MOTION
CORPORATION AND RESEARCH IN
MOTION LTD.'S OBJECTION TO THE
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING A PROCEDURE
FOR REDUCING THE NUMBER OF
SEALING REQUESTS

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
A Registered Limited Liability
Law Partnership Including
Professional Corporations

2684611

NONPARTIES RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION AND RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD.'S
OBJECTION TO THE JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING SEALING

Nonparties Research In Motion Corporation and Research In Motion Ltd. (collectively,

1

2 "RIM") respectfully submit this objection to the Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding
3 a Procedure for Reducing the Number of Sealing Requests (Dkt. 1597) ("Stipulation") filed by
4 Apple and Samsung on August 6, 2012. The Stipulation, if adopted by the Court, would
5 substantially undermine the relief RIM and other nonparties have sought in order to protect their
6 highly sensitive and trade secret information.
The Stipulation appears to allow public disclosure1 of key business and financial terms of

7

8 RIM's Patent License Agreement with Samsung ("Patent Agreement") under at least two
9 circumstances, neither of which provides adequate protection to the information in question.
First, the Stipulation would permit disclosure as long as "neutral non-identifying

10

11 designations (such as 'Party A')" are substituted for the names of the affected third parties in Trial
12 Exhibit 630. Stipulation ¶ 5. RIM (as with all other nonparties) has already filed a redacted
13 version of Trial Exhibit 630, identifying RIM, with the Court. Dkt. 1396-1. It would be simple
14 for one of RIM's competitors to match the non-redacted portions of the exhibit filed by RIM with
15 the information that would be supplied by Trial Exhibit 630 pursuant to the Stipulation, and
16 thereby gain access to the very information that RIM (and all other nonparties) sought to protect.
17 The terms common to both public disclosures – including the "Date Last Signed" and the
18 production Bates numbers – could easily be matched up to identify RIM as the counterparty to the
19 licensing information identified by the allegedly neutral moniker "Party A" in Trial Exhibit 630
20 pursuant to the Stipulation. Moreover, even if RIM had not filed a redacted version of the relevant
21 portion of Trial Exhibit 630, the remaining information made public pursuant to the Stipulation
22
23
1
Although the Stipulation recites that "[t]he parties will not oppose each other's efforts to
24 seal the record," ¶ 5, neither party moved to seal what is indisputably highly confidential RIM
information. Saying that neither party will oppose a motion to seal is of little comfort, given that
25 Samsung has made no effort (as required under its agreement with RIM) to take all necessary and
appropriate steps to protect RIM’s information from disclosure. Instead, the Stipulation appears to
26 contemplate that the procedures discussed herein may be used in lieu of sealing. In any event, the
Stipulation does not require sealing any information and indeed expressly states that "[n]othing in
27 this paragraph will limit a party's right to use information that is not under seal." Id. ¶ 5. The
concerns stated in RIM's motion to seal, and establishing compelling reasons justifying sealing,
28 are thus undiminished.
IRELL & MANELLA LLP

-1-

A Registered Limited Liability
Law Partnership Including
Professional Corporations

2684611

NONPARTIES RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION AND RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD.'S
OBJECTION TO THE JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING SEALING

1 would be sufficient to identify RIM because of the timing, nature, and scope of the Patent
2 Agreement.
Second, the Stipulation appears to discard even the appearance of protection for nonparties

3

4 by allowing disclosure of the identity of third parties that are "the subject of testimony" at trial.
5 See Stipulation ¶ 5 ("The parties will substitute neutral, non-identifying designations . . . to the
6 extent such third parties will not be the subject of testimony.") (emphasis added). Such an open7 ended exception appears to swallow the rule, and the purported protections, created by the
8 Stipulation. Under the Stipulation, any third party that is the "subject of testimony" would have all
9 of its highly sensitive licensing information disclosed, without any confidentiality protections at
10 all. Such a result is directly contrary to the authorities cited by RIM and the other affected third
11 parties in their briefing. Under the Stipulation, the danger therefore remains that RIM's highly
12 sensitive and trade secret information will be publicly disclosed.
RIM established through sworn declarations in prior filings that RIM would be

13

14 substantially and irreparably harmed by such disclosure and compelling reasons justify sealing the
15 information in question. See RIM's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Dkt. 1396);
16 Declaration of Michael J. Crowley (Dkt. 1396-2); RIM's Supplemental Brief (Dkt. 1484); and the
17 Supplemental Declaration of Michael J. Crowley (Dkt. 1484-1). The Stipulation fails to protect
18 this information, contrary to law, and instead allows disclosure under at least two circumstances.
19 The Stipulation should therefore be rejected, and RIM's motion to seal granted.
20
21 Dated: August 8, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

22

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

23
By:

24

/s/ Jonathan Lange
Jonathan Lange

25
Attorneys for Nonparties
Research In Motion Corporation and
Research In Motion Ltd.

26
27
28
IRELL & MANELLA LLP

-2-

A Registered Limited Liability
Law Partnership Including
Professional Corporations

2684611

NONPARTIES RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION AND RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD.'S
OBJECTION TO THE JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING SEALING