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

Filing 2948

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh finding as moot 2881 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 2884 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 2908 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 2919 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 2921 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

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 RE: POST-TRIAL SEALING
MOTIONS

The parties have filed various administrative motions to seal portions of their post-trial
19
briefs. The Court has reviewed those motions and the declarations filed in support thereof and
20
issues the following rulings:
21



22
23
24
25
26
27
28



Samsung’s administrative motion to file portions of its motion for
judgment as a matter of law (Dkt. 2881) is DENIED as moot in light of
Dkt. No. 2884.
Samsung’s administrative motion to file portions of its corrected motion
for judgment as a matter of law (Dkt. 2884) is GRANTED-IN-PART and
DENIED-IN-PART. Samsung does not maintain any claim of
confidentiality over the portions of its motion sought to be sealed, see Dkt.
2884-1 ¶ 4, and Apple does not maintain any claim of confidentiality as to
pages 20:12-14, 20:20-22, 20:25-26, and 22:8-11, see Dkt. 2895 ¶ 6.
Accordingly, Samsung’s motion is DENIED as to those portions. The
remaining portions sought to be sealed discuss Apple’s proprietary
calculations as to average selling prices and product capacity information
that, if publicly disclosed, could competitively harm Apple. See Dkt. 2895
1

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART POST-TRIAL SEALING MOTIONS

1
2



3
4
5
6
7
8
9



United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16



¶¶ 4-5. Accordingly, Samsung’s motion is GRANTED as to those
portions.
Apple’s administrative motion to file portions of its opposition to
Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (Dkt. 2908) is
GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Apple seeks to maintain
the confidentiality of its expert’s market share allocation of the number of
infringing sales of Samsung smartphones and tablets. Apple has not
explained how it can logically maintain a claim of confidentiality over
Samsung’s sales data. Samsung does not claim that this information is
confidential. Accordingly, Apple’s request as to pages 14:4-5 and 21:4-5
is DENIED. The remaining information sought to be sealed relates to
Apple’s iPad2 capacity. Apple has adequately explained that the release of
this information could put it at a competitive disadvantage. See Dkt. 29081 ¶ 3. Accordingly, Apple’s request as to page 24:9, 24:16-18, and 24:20
is GRANTED.
Samsung’s administrative motion to file portions of its reply in support of
its motion for judgment as a matter of law (Dkt. 2921) is GRANTED-INPART and DENIED-IN-PART. Samsung does not maintain any claim of
confidentiality over the portions of its reply sought to be redacted, see Dkt.
2921-1 ¶ 4, and Apple does not maintain a claim of confidentiality as to
pages 15:20-21 or 16:2-5, see Dkt. 2927 ¶ 5. Accordingly, Samsung’s
motion is DENIED as to those portions. The remaining portions sought to
be sealed discuss Apple’s proprietary calculations as to average selling
prices and product capacity information that, if publicly disclosed, could
competitively harm Apple. See Dkt. 2927 ¶¶ 3-4. Accordingly, Samsung’s
motion is GRANTED as to those portions.
Apple’s administrative motion to file portions of its reply in support of its
motion for judgment as a matter of law (Dkt. 2919) is DENIED. Neither
party maintains a claim of confidentiality as to any material contained in
Apple’s reply. See Dkt. 2919-1; 2926.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: February 7, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART POST-TRIAL SEALING MOTIONS