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

Filing 1754

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 1696 Motion to Stay; granting in part and denying in part 1723 Motion to Stay (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

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
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES’
MOTIONS TO STAY PENDING
APPEAL

18
This Court issued an Order Granting-in-Part and Denying-in-Part Motions to Seal. ECF
19
No. 1649. Apple has filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit, appealing the portions of the Order
20
that denied Apple’s request to seal “confidential financial data” and “confidential and proprietary
21
market research reports.” Apple’s Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 1696. Apple appeals this Court’s ruling
22
with respect to documents filed in support of Apple’s Daubert and summary judgment motions, as
23
well as a document filed in support of Samsung’s motion to strike. See Apple’s Mot. to Stay at 124
2. Samsung has also filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit, appealing the portions of the Order
25
that denied sealing of documents containing Samsung’s “profit, loss and cost information.”
26
Samsung’s Mot. to Stay at 2, ECF No. 1723. The parties have exempted from their appeals rulings
27
on exhibits to be introduced at trial because the parties have entered into a stipulation to reduce the
28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO STAY

1

amount of confidential information at trial. See Samsung’s Mot. to Stay at 6; Apple’s Mot. to Stay

2

at 2.

3

For the district court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) vests the power to stay an order

4

pending appeal with the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). For both the appellate court and

5

the district court “the factors regulating the issuance of a stay are generally the same: (1) whether

6

the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether

7

the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will

8

substantially injure the other [parties’ interest] in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest

9

lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). Deciding whether to grant a stay of an order

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

pending an appeal is an equitable inquiry. Each factor in the analysis need not be given equal

11

weight. Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511, 512 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “When

12

harm to applicant is great enough, a court will not require ‘a strong showing’ that applicant is

13

‘likely to succeed on the merits.’” Id. (citing Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776). Indeed, in Hilton the

14

Supreme Court acknowledged, “the traditional stay factors contemplate individualized judgments

15

in each case, the formula cannot be reduced to a set of rigid rules.” Hilton, 481 U.S. at 777.

16

“Thus, the four stay factors can effectively merge,” and a court therefore, “assesses movant’s

17

chances for success on appeal and weighs the equities as they affect the parties and the public.”

18

Standard Havens Prods., 897 F.2d at 513 (citations omitted).

19

Although this Court does not believe that the partial denial of the parties’ sealing request

20

was erroneous, this Court nonetheless recognizes that should the Federal Circuit disagree, the

21

parties will be deprived of any remedy if this Court does not stay its order. When the information

22

is publicly filed, what once may have been trade secret no longer will be. Thus, the parties may be

23

irreparably injured absent a stay. In contrast, the public interest, which favors disclosure of

24

relevant information in order to understand the proceedings, is not unduly harmed by a short stay.

25

As explained above, none of the trial exhibits is the subject of the parties’ appeals or this motion to

26

stay. Moreover, a short stay would merely maintain the status quo until the parties can seek stay

27

relief from the Federal Circuit. Accordingly, after balancing the interests of the parties and the

28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO STAY

1

public interest, the Court grants a brief stay of the August 9, 2012 Order1 Granting-in-Part and

2

Denying-in-Part the parties’ motions to seal. The stay is only in effect pending a decision by the

3

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on a motion for stay pending appeal. This

4

Court hereby denies the parties’ request for a stay pending the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the

5

parties’ respective appeals of this Courts’ August 9, 2012 Order Granting-in-Part and Denying-in-

6

Part the parties’ motions to seal.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: August 15, 2012

9

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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

1

Because this Court’s August 9, 2012 Order Granting-in-Part and Denying-in-Part Motions to
Seal supersedes this Court’s July 17, 2012 Order Denying Sealing Motions Without Prejudice, this
Court denies Samsung’s Motion to Stay this Court’s July 17, 2012 Order as moot.
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO STAY