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

Filing 3217

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 3128 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17
18

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al., )
)
)
Defendants.
)
APPLE INC., a California Corporation,

19
20

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 3128)

The undersigned is not quite sure, but sealing in this case may just have officially passed
from the sublime to the ridiculous.

21
22

Case No.: 5:11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG

Several months ago, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part what were then the latest
motions to seal filed by the parties and third party Nokia Corporation.1 Among other things, the

23
24
25

court noted that Nokia's proposed sealing was “not narrowly tailored to confidential business
information.”

26
27
1

28

See generally Docket No. 3113.
1

Case No.: 5:11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

In response, Nokia now seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration. In its motion,

1
2

Nokia represents that “[h]eeding the Court's June 11 order . . . Nokia has addressed this issue by

3

conducting a careful review . . . and redacting only those narrow portions . . . that contain . . .

4

confidential information.”2 But even a casual review of the very first pleading addressed by Nokia

5
6

shows otherwise. In that pleading, Nokia asks the court to seal multiple references that are
quoted—verbatim—in articles available to anyone on the planet with a web browser and basic

7
8

internet access:


A June 15, 2011 article in Business Insider titled “Apple Paying Nokia $715 Million
Upfront to Settle Patent Dispute, Estimates Analyst” states: “Bernstein analyst Pierre
Ferragu estimates Apple is paying Nokia €500 (~$715) million as an upfront payment this
quarter to settle its patent dispute. He estimates Apple will pay Nokia an additional €100
(~$143) million the rest of the year.” Other publications subsequently reported on the
contents of the Business Insider article.3



June 15, 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Nokia, Apple Make Up” states that
“Swedbank AB analyst Jari Honko estimated Apple’s one-time payment to Nokia could be
around €500 million, or about $720 million.” It also states that “Apple will make a onetime payment to Nokia and pay continuing royalties as part of a patent-license agreement,
Nokia said Tuesday.”4



9

An October 3, 2011 article from AppleInsider titled “SEC sought more details on AppleNokia patent settlement” reported the following on the receipt of payments as part of the
settlement: “In July, Nokia revealed it had received a $600 million one-time royalty
payment. Though the public filing did not disclose the sum it was paid by Apple in their
patent deal, the information would suggest Apple’s payment did not exceed $600 million.
Nokia and Apple resolved their patent dispute in June, with Apple agreeing to pay Nokia

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

2

23

3

See Docket No. 3128 at 2.

25

Docket No. 3130-1 at 6. The underlying document itself identifies the URLs of these articles,
which Nokia does not seek to seal: http://www.businessinsider.com/nokia-apple-settlement-20116; http://regator.com/p/251943988/apple_paying_nokia_715_million_upfront_to_settle/; and
http://seekingalpha.com/article/275265-apple-patent-settlement-with-nokia-may-spur-more-claims.

26

4

24

27

Id. at 6-7. Again, Nokia does not seek to seal the cited URL:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576384783542753682.html.

28

2
Case No.: 5:11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

for licenses. The deal included a one-time payment to Nokia, in addition to ongoing
royalties.”5

1
2

If this were the court's first lament about sealing in this case—or second or third or fourth—

3
the court could be more forgiving. But at some point, the cost of such unwarranted sealing
4
5

requests to the taxpayers, the press and other parties with equally important claims to the court’s

6

resources must take priority. Nokia’s request for leave is DENIED.

7

SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: November 18, 2014

9

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

5

Id. at 7. Once more the URL is readily available:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/03/sec_sought_more_details_on_apple_nokia_patent_settlem
ent.

28

3
Case No.: 5:11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL