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)

Download PDF
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

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?