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

Filing 2397

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying as moot 2228 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 2231 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 2250 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 2268 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2013)

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

APPLE INC., a California corporation

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15
16

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,

17

Case No.: 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING RENEWED
MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 2228, 2231, 2250, 2268)

Defendants.

18
On February 1, 2013, the court issued an omnibus order granting-in-part and denying-in-

19
20

part myriad sealing requests by both Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,

21

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

22

(collectively, “Samsung”) filed in the first suit between the two parties. 1 Following that order, both

23
24

Apple and Samsung filed renewed motions to seal various documents that the parties each asserted
contained highly confidential business information. 2 Samsung also moved to stay the February 1

25
26
1

27
2

28

See Docket No. 2222.

See Docket No. 2228 (Apple’s renewed motion to seal); Docket No. 2231 (Samsung’s renewed
motion to seal).
1
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

order, which the court granted pending its resolution of Samsung’s renewed request. 3 Apple

2

subsequently filed a “corrected” renewed motion to seal. 4 Third-parties Interdigital Holdings, Inc.,

3

Interdigital Technology, Inc., and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, “Interdigital”) moved to seal a

4

licensing agreement between Interdigital and Apple. 5 The court now briefly addresses the renewed

5

motions to seal.

6

At the outset, the court must acknowledge the Federal Circuit’s recent directive regarding

7
sealing requests in this very case. Following Apple and Samsung’s appeal of two orders from
8
9

Judge Koh denying their requests to seal similar financial information, the Federal Circuit

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

determined that Apple and Samsung had made a sufficient showing of harm that was not

11

outweighed by the public’s interest in this case. 6 The court therefore considers the renewed

12

motions to seal with the Federal Circuit’s direction in mind.

13
14

In its February 1 order, the court found that even though the documents at issue were
subject to the lower good cause standard applicable to non-dispositive motions, 7 Apple and

15
16

Samsung had failed to make a particularized showing that certain confidential financial and

17

licensing information they wanted sealed in fact would be harmful if published. 8 In the respective

18

renewed motions, Apple, Samsung, and Interdigital offer further descriptions of the harm that

19

would befall each of them if the financial and licensing information at issue lost its confidential

20

status. 9 Apple also points out that at least two exhibits for which the court denied sealing requests

21
22

3

See Docket Nos. 2230, 2232.

23

4

See Docket No. 2250.

24

5

See Docket No. 2268.

25

6

See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., --- F.3d ---, 2013 WL 4487610 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

26

7

See Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006)

27

8

See Docket No. 2222.

28

9

See Docket Nos. 2230, 2250, 2268.

2
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

include source code. 10 In light of the parties’ additional explanations and the Federal Circuit’s

2

recent instruction, the court finds that sealing the various financial and source code documents is

3

warranted.

4

Accordingly, Samsung’s renewed motion to seal is GRANTED, 11 Apple’s corrected

5

renewed motion to seal is GRANTED, 12 Interdigital’s motion to seal is GRANTED, 13 and Apple’s

6

original renewed motion 14 is DENIED AS MOOT in light of Apple’s corrected motion. To the

7
extent that Apple and Samsung offered redacted versions of the exhibits at issue, Apple and
8
9

Samsung shall file those redacted versions on the public docket within fourteen days. The parties

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

also shall comply with General Order No. 62 with regards to filing the various documents under

11

seal.

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: September 11, 2013
14
15

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

10

See Docket No. 2250.

25

11

See Docket No. 2231.

26

12

See Docket No. 2250.

27

13

See Docket No. 2268.

28

14

See Docket No. 2228.

3
Case No: 11-CV-01846 LHK
ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTIONS TO SEAL