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

Filing 1519

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting #1478 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

APPLE INC., a California Corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; and SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Re: Docket No. 1478)

22

On March 26, 2014, the parties appeared before the undersigned for a hearing on Samsung

23

Electronics Co., Ltd.’s motion for partial reconsideration of the court’s recent sealing order. In its

24

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, Samsung indicated that the motion would

25

address source code that had been unsealed due to the parties’ failure to narrowly tailor their initial

26
request. However, in reviewing the more than 5,000 pages submitted for reconsideration, it
27
28

1
Case No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

became clear that the parties were attempting to seal not only source code but also any general

2

descriptions of how source code functions and any indication that the operations of one device may

3

be similar to those in another device.

4

As discussed at the hearing, the court now GRANTS the motion for reconsideration, but

5

only IN-PART. Any actual source code appearing in the exhibits submitted for reconsideration

6

shall be sealed, as shall any verbal descriptions of the way in which the source code functions.

7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

However, simple statements that one product or version functions like another do not constitute
confidential business information and on that basis, statements and sentences beginning with “The

10

infringing functionality outlined in this document does not vary across any accused version . . .”

11

“All accused versions of ____ have similar hardware, software, and functionality . . .” or their

12

equivalents will not be sealed.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
Dated: March 27, 2014
15
16
17

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION