Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., et al

Filing 230

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 169 MOTION to Seal Limited Sections of the October 24, 2018 Transcript filed by Koninklijke KPN N.V. is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 9/16/19. (ntl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. ,
Plaintiff,
C.A. No. 17-90-LPS

V.

SIERRA WIRELESS , INC., AND
SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this 16 th day of September, 2019:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to seal portions of the October 24, 2018
transcript of a discovery dispute teleconference. (D .I. 169) Defendants oppose all redactions.
(See D.I. 173) Having reviewed the parties' briefing (D.I. 169, 173, 177), IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that the motion (D.I. 169) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff has shown good cause for its proposed redactions. See Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. LSI

Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d 503 , 507-08 (D. Del. 201 2) (outlining "good cause" standard for motion
to seal). The transcript contains sensitive and confidential licensing information, the disclosure
of which may harm Plaintiffs competitive position and relationship with contracting parties not
subject to suit. (See D.I. 169 at 2 (Plaintiff arguing "public disclosure would inflict a clearly
defined and serious injury on KPN (and the non-party Sisvel entities) by allowing their
respective competitors to gain access to proprietary information regarding the specifics of their
patent licensing arrangements"); see also Mosaid, 878 F. Supp. 2d at 510 (granting motion to
seal portions of judicial transcript addressing terms of patent licensing agreement))

Defendants are correct that there is a public interest in revealing how Plaintiff (and its
licensing affiliates) allegedly breached FRAND obligations. (See D.I. 173 at 2) At some stage
of this case, that public interest may well come to outweigh Plaintiff's countervailing interests. 1
However, the pending motion relates solely to the transcript of a discovery teleconference. At
this point, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff' s identified harm - supported by the affidavit of
Mr. Wuyts, Plaintiff's Chief Intellectual Property Officer (D.I. 169-3) - is sufficiently specific

and probable to warrant granting the motion.

1

Importantly, the transcript at issue here is of a teleconference addressing discovery disputes.
Whether the same showing that has persuaded the Court to seal portions of this transcript would
yield the same result had the hearing been held in Court (or if, instead of a motions hearing, it
was a transcript of a trial) is not a matter presently before the Court.
2