Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 234

ORDER: granting 213 Letter Motion to Seal. The application is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. No. 277 in 14 Civ. 2396 and Dkt. No. 213 in 14 Civ. 9558.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 9/21/2023) (ama)

Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 277 Filed 09/30/22 Page 1 of 2

ANDREW V. TRASK
[phone]
[e-mail]

September 30, 2022
VIA ECF
Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square, Room 2204
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, et al., Nos. 1:14-cv-2396-PGGSN & 1:14-cv-9558-PGG-SN (S.D.N.Y.)

Dear Judge Gardephe:
I write on behalf of Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC (collectively, “Google”)
to request leave to file under seal Google’s Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief Regarding
Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Google is not seeking to seal the brief in its entirety;
rather, it has applied targeted redactions to particular passages containing commercially sensitive
information that it submits ought to remain confidential notwithstanding the “presumption of
access” applicable to the filing. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20
(2d Cir. 2006); see id. at 120 (explaining that a court should “balance competing considerations”
when determining whether sealing is warranted, including “the privacy interests of those
resisting disclosure”). In accordance with Rule II.B of the Court’s Individual Rules, Google will
publicly file the brief with the proposed redactions and file under seal a copy of the unredacted
document with the redactions highlighted.
The redacted portions of the supplemental brief describe particular details relating to
techniques for structuring or searching data that Google keeps confidential in order to preserve
its competitive standing. In particular, the redacted passages contain descriptions by fact or
expert witnesses of proprietary algorithms or parameters used by Google in its Content ID
system that could not be ascertained without access to Google’s confidential source code or other
documentation that Google regards as commercially sensitive. This kind of confidential
“technical information” has been sealed under analogous circumstances because public
disclosure “could allow competitors an unfair advantage, and would thus be highly prejudicial.”
Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 1:18-cv-4500-GHW, 2021 WL 1222122, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 31, 2021) (granting a request in a patent infringement litigation to seal certain “confidential
and proprietary data collection procedures, image processing procedures, specific hardware used
to perform these procedures, and confidential details about … specific algorithms and the names
of specific variables and functions in [the defendant’s] source code”).

Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 277 Filed 09/30/22 Page 2 of 2
September 30, 2022
Page 2
Google’s Content ID system is the product of extensive research and development efforts
by teams of Google computer scientists and software engineers, and Google respectfully submits
that it is appropriate to redact descriptions of particular design choices or technical
implementations relating to the system. Releasing these kinds of confidential details could allow
competitors, copyright infringers, or others to benefit unfairly from Google’s substantial
investments in its proprietary methods for determining instances of reuse of video, audio, and
melody content. The proposed redactions are therefore necessary to avoid competitive harm.
See, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Commncn’s, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (observing that “the right
to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute” and noting approvingly that courts have
sealed “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”); Louis Vuitton
Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merchandise Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (approving
redactions to “judicial documents” that were “generally limited to specific business information
and strategies, which, if revealed, may provide valuable insights into a company’s current
business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit”).
Google’s proposed redactions are directed to details regarding Google’s Content ID
system that are confidential and commercially sensitive, and the parties’ legal theories and
arguments will remain publicly accessible. This targeted approach is consistent with the balance
that courts must strike in determining which materials merit sealing, including with respect to
summary judgment briefing in patent infringement cases. See, e.g., Kewazinga, 2021 WL
1222122, at *7 (describing “the countervailing privacy concerns [that] outweigh the public’s
need for public access” to a party’s “confidential technical information” submitted with a
summary judgment motion); BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research
Org., No. 2:17-cv-503-HCM, 2020 WL 973751, at *15–16 (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 2020) (approving
redactions to “confidential commercial information” in materials submitted with motions for
summary judgment because, among other things, “the parties have filed detailed public versions,
which do not seek to completely seal their briefing, outlining in detail the legal and factual issues
raised by the motions”).
For the foregoing reasons, Google respectfully requests leave to file a redacted version
of its Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief Regarding Google’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Sincerely,
/s/ Andrew V. Trask
Andrew V. Trask
MEMO ENDORSED: The application is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motions pending at Dkt. No. 277 in 14 Civ. 2396 and Dkt. No. 213 in 14 Civ. 9558.

Date: September 21, 2023