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

Filing 2179

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 2177 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

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.
)
)

18

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE HTC LICENSE; MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

Before the Court is Samsung’s motion for leave to file the Declaration of Robert J. Becher

19

Regarding Samsung’s Submission of HTC Settlement Agreement In Support of Opposition to

20

Apple’s Motion for Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancement (“motion for leave to file

21

HTC license”). ECF No. 2177-2. Also before the Court is Samsung’s motion to file under seal

22

both portions of the motion for leave to file HTC license, and the license agreement itself. Because

23

the parties require a ruling on these motions quickly, the Court will keep its discussion and analysis

24

brief.

25

The HTC agreement did not exist until November 11, 2012, and Samsung did not receive it

26

until Judge Grewal granted Samsung’s motion to compel on November 21, 2012, ECF No. 2158

27

and Apple produced the document five days later. The Court agrees that the license agreement

28

may be relevant to the permanent injunction analysis, and that Samsung could not have presented it
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE HTC LICENSE; MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

sooner. Accordingly, Samsung’s motion for leave to file HTC license is GRANTED. Further, the

2

Court finds that the relevance of the agreement can be adequately addressed at the December 6,

3

2012 hearing, without further briefing.
As regards the motion to file under seal, this Court has repeatedly explained that only the

5

pricing and royalty terms of license agreements may be sealed. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 1649, 2168.

6

Only these terms, and not the rest of the agreement, meet the “compelling reasons” standard

7

articulated by the Ninth Circuit for sealing filings related to dispositive motions and trial. See

8

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). There are

9

compelling reasons to seal pricing and royalty terms, as they may place the parties to the agreement

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

at a disadvantage in future negotiations, but there is nothing in the remainder of the agreement that

11

presents a sufficient risk of competitive harm to justify keeping it from the public. Accordingly,

12

Samsung’s motion to seal is GRANTED with regard to the pricing and royalty terms of the

13

agreement only, and DENIED with regard to the rest of the agreement.

14

Samsung also seeks to redact the motion for leave to file HTC license. However, none of

15

Samsung’s proposed redactions cover information that is properly sealable under the “compelling

16

reasons” standard. The proposed redactions cover only: (1) the fact that Apple has made an

17

argument regarding license agreements in its permanent injunction motion; and (2) which patents

18

are covered by the agreement. Apple has already articulated its argument concerning license

19

agreements in two publically filed documents. See ECF Nos. 1982-1 at 10; 2127-2 at 7. Thus, this

20

information is not confidential. And the Court has just explained that the only sealable terms of the

21

license agreement are the payment and royalty terms. Thus, the list of patents covered by the

22

agreement does not meet the “compelling reasons” standard. Accordingly, Samsung’s motion to

23

file under seal is DENIED with regard to the proposed redactions to the motion for leave to file

24

HTC license.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: December 3, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

27
28
2

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE HTC LICENSE; MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL