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

Filing 2192

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 2182 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

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 MOTION TO
SEAL

On December 3, 2012, this Court issued an Order granting Samsung’s motion for leave to
19
file Apple’s license agreement with HTC, and ruling that only the pricing and royalty terms of the
20
agreement could be filed under seal. ECF No. 2179. Samsung has now filed a proposed redacted
21
version of the license agreement. ECF No. 2182. HTC has filed a response and a declaration in
22
support of Samsung’s proposed redactions. ECF No. 2186.
23
As this Court has previously explained, the “compelling reasons” standard applies to
24
documents filed in connection with Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction, as, like a
25
dispositive motion, a motion for a permanent injunction cannot be considered tangential to the
26
merits of the case. See ECF Nos. 2047; 2168; 2190. The Ninth Circuit has explained that
27
“‘compelling reasons’ may exist if sealing is required to prevent judicial documents from being
28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

1

used ‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.’” In re

2

Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

3

435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).

4

HTC has proposed to redact portions of the license agreement covering the actual pricing
and royalty terms, as well as terms explaining exactly how those royalties are to be determined, for

6

which products, and for which precise features. These terms are closely linked with the actual

7

payment and royalty amounts, and may pose a competitive risk to HTC for the same reasons.

8

Specifically, exposure of the details of how the royalties will be determined for any given product

9

could allow other companies to gain an advantage in negotiating with HTC in the future. Further,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

HTC, not a party to this action, has carefully identified only the specific portions of the agreement

11

likely to cause actual competitive harm. The relevance of this agreement to the present case is

12

limited to which Apple patents have been licensed. Thus, the public’s interest in disclosure of the

13

details of how royalties are to be calculated is very limited, and is outweighed by HTC’s interest in

14

keeping the most sensitive terms of its license agreements confidential. Accordingly, Samsung’s

15

motion to file under seal, incorporating HTC’s requested redactions, is GRANTED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: December 11, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL