Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Aug 9, 2012

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012)

Opinion

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK

08-09-2012

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.

LUCY H. KOH

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal documents, which have been filed by both litigants as well as a substantial number of third parties. See e.g., ECF Nos. 1328, 1334, 1340, 1376, 1378, 1390, 1394, 1396, 1400, 1407, 1414, 1481, 1486, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1493, 1495, 1498, 1499, 1506, and 1638. Although both litigants had sealing motions pending before this Court, each has filed renewed motions to seal. These most recent sealing motions supersede the prior motions, and the Court will only address the renewed motions to seal. These administrative motions relate to three types of documents: (1) litigants' documents that will likely be introduced in the trial that began on July 30, 2012; (2) documents which were used exclusively for prior motions, such as the parties' cross motions for summary judgment; and (3) third party documents produced in discovery and to be used by either party at trial.

On August 6, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation that may obviate the need for rulings on some of the parties' trial exhibits. See ECF No. 1597. Nevertheless, the Court will rule on the most recent set of administrative motions to seal in order to settle any questions about precisely what information will be sealed at trial. Moreover, the sealing motions for documents which relate to previously filed motions are not covered by the parties' stipulation and must be ruled on separately.

The Court adopts the Joint Stipulation, with the exception of paragraph five.

I. Legal Standard

Historically, courts have recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). "Unless a particular court record is one 'traditionally kept secret,' a 'strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 1178-79. Because the public's interest in non-dispositive motions is relatively low, a party seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate "good cause." Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying "good cause" standard to all non-dispositive motions, because such motions "'are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action'" (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179)).

Conversely, "the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the 'public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.'" Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). Thus, a party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion or presented at trial must articulate "compelling reasons" in favor of sealing. See id. at 1178. "The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records." Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). "In general, 'compelling reasons' . . . exist when such 'court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the Restatements' definition of "trade secret" for purposes of sealing, holding that "[a] 'trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it." In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x 568, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). Additionally, "compelling reasons" may exist if sealing is required to prevent judicial documents from being used "'as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.'" Id. at 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).

II. Litigants' Administrative Motions to Seal

Pursuant to this Court's instructions, both Apple and Samsung have refiled administrative motions to file certain documents under seal. The parties have been advised that, pursuant to Ninth Circuit law, there will be a strong presumption that documents will be publicly available, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, and that any motions seeking to overcome this presumption must be narrowly tailored. With these requirements in mind, the Court now considers each of the litigant's motions.

A. Apple's Administrative Motion to Seal Trial Exhibits

Apple's Administrative Motion to Seal Trial Exhibits asks the Court to seal four categories of information: (1) confidential financial information; (2) confidential source code; (3) proprietary marketing reports; and (4) terms of licensing agreements. Mot. to Seal Trial Exs. at 7-13. The Court considers each of these categories in turn.

1. Apple's Motion to Seal Confidential Capacity Information

Apple moves to seal trial exhibits containing information about its production and supply capacity, arguing that disclosure of such information would cause Apple competitive harm. Mot. to Seal Trial Exs. at 7. According to Apple, disclosure of this capacity data would allow Apple's competitors to alter their production schedules, so that they could increase production when Apple is stretched thin or lower their prices when Apple has excess inventory. Decl. of Jim Bean in Supp. of Mot. to Seal Trial Exs. ("Bean Trial Decl.") ¶ 6. Additionally, it could allow Apple's suppliers to extract higher prices for component parts when Apple most needs them. See id. Similarly, Apple argues that product line information (that is, financial details broken out by product) could give competitors insight into the relative success of different Apple products. Id. ¶ 7. According to Apple, this would allow competitors to alter their investments in their own competing products. Id.

The Court agrees that information relating to Apple's production and supply capacity is "trade secret" under Ninth Circuit law and is therefore properly sealed. Although the Court is mindful of the public's interest in access to judicial documents, disclosure of this information would cause substantial competitive harm to Apple. Competitors and suppliers armed with knowledge of Apple's capacity would be able to alter their business and pricing models to gain an unfair advantage over Apple in such a way that would "harm its competitive standing." See Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569 (citing Nixon, 543 U.S. at 598). Suppliers, for instance, could predict when Apple would most need to increase supply and leverage this knowledge to exact substantial price increases. See Bean Trial Decl. ¶ 6. Similarly, competitors could lower their prices during periods when Apple has excess capacity and is therefore must vulnerable to a price cut. See id. Although Apple seeks to seal past capacity data, such data is cyclical and would allow competitors and suppliers to discover the patterns in Apple's capacity that would make it easy to predict Apple's current and future capacity constraints. See id.

Additionally, while production and supply capacity is one factor in each side's damages calculations, the core of the parties' damages analysis revolves around profits, profit margins, costs, and unit sales. Apple's production capacity serves only as a limit on the potential damages awarded, not as a driver of the damage claims. Indeed, Apple's production capacity is a secondary consideration in each side's damages analysis and, as such, is only indirectly relevant to one particular kind of damages—Apple's lost profits claims. The potential for "harm to [Apple's] competitive standing" is quite high, however, if this information is released to the public, see Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Because Apple's interest in keeping its production capacity information under seal substantially outweighs the public's interest in accessing it, the Court agrees that "compelling reasons" have been shown for keeping Apple's production capacity under seal, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Likewise, as discussed later in this Order, Samsung's production capacity information will also be sealed.

2. Apple's Motion to Seal Confidential Financial Data

Apple moves to seal trial exhibits containing sensitive financial information, arguing that disclosure of such information would cause Apple competitive harm. Mot. to Seal Trial Exs. at 7. In particular, Apple seeks to seal information pertaining to product-specific profits and profit margins, product-specific unit sales and revenue, and costs. Id. According to Apple, disclosure of this information would cause substantial harm to Apple's competitive standing. Id.

Apple argues that disclosure of this financial information would allow competitors to price their products to gain an unfair advantage over Apple. Bean Trial Decl. ¶ 8. In particular, Apple claims that competitors could undercut Apple by pricing their products at a level that would be unprofitable to Apple. Id. Moreover, Apple argues that its suppliers could rely on profit and cost information to leverage higher prices from Apple during negotiations. See id.

The Court is not persuaded that Apple's interest in sealing its financial data outweighs the public's interest in accessing this information. Despite having multiple opportunities to brief this issue, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 1317, 1495, 1499, Apple has not sufficiently articulated facts that support a "compelling reason" to keep this information from the public. Indeed, Apple has failed to convince the Court that profit, profit margin, cost, and/or unit sales data would lead to the competitive harms that Apple claims in its briefing. See, e.g., Bean Trial Decl. ¶ 8. For instance, Apple claims that its cost and profit information would allow competitors to "determine exactly what price level would make a given product unprofitable to Apple, and target their product offerings at exactly that price." Id. This argument, however, relies on two critical assumptions, for which Apple provides no support. First, Apple assumes that its products are perfectly interchangeable with those of its competitors, such that Apple would be forced to exactly match its competitors' prices. Second, it assumes that Apple's competitors could profitably maintain this critical price point, since it is well known that "predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 589 (1986). Accordingly, Apple's argument is unpersuasive and is therefore not a "compelling reason" for sealing as required by Kamakana.

Moreover, although Apple argues that its profit, profit margins, cost and unit sales data would allow competitors to better tailor their product offerings to counter Apple, Apple has not explained how past profit and unit sales data can be used to meaningfully predict Apple's future business plans. Although Apple implies that its capacity constraints are relatively periodic, see Bean Trial Decl. ¶ 6, it makes no similar allegations with regards to profits, profit margins, costs, or unit sales information. Indeed, because Apple updates its product lines relatively frequently, it is not obvious that historical profit, profit margin, cost, or unit sales data for past products would provide competitors with an advantage over future products.

Furthermore, the financial information that Apple seeks to seal is essential to each party's damages calculations. For this trial in particular, which involves claims of up to $2.5 billion in damages, this data is extremely important to the public's understanding of the eventual outcome, which has the potential for wide ranging ripple effects. Indeed, this trial is especially unusual in the extraordinary public interest it has generated. Thus, the public has a substantial interest in full disclosure of this information. The Court finds that Apple has not articulated a "compelling reason" for sealing its financial data that outweighs the public's interest in accessing it; accordingly this information will not be sealed. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 ("[T]he party [seeking to seal a document] must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

Having determined the general categories of financial data that may be sealed and having reviewed each of the documents that Apple seeks to seal, the Court now applies these principles to the particular documents that Apple has moved to seal. For the sake of efficiency, the Court presents its conclusions in the table below. All rulings are consistent with the rationale articulated above. Should either party seek to introduce at trial any exhibit for which the motion to seal has been granted-in-part and denied-in-part, the party seeking to keep the document under seal must file its proposed redactions by 8:00 a.m. the day before the redacted document is introduced so the Court can approve the redactions. The rulings regarding trial exhibits contained herein apply only to those exhibits admitted at trial.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Trial Exhibit ¦Ruling ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Apple has over- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦designated the information in this exhibit to be sealed. The ¦ ¦ ¦Court ¦ ¦PX25 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIES Apple's motion to seal this exhibit, with the sole ¦ ¦ ¦exception of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's proposed redactions of capacity data, ¦ ¦ ¦see, e.g., PX25.9-10. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Apple has over- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦designated the information in this exhibit to be sealed. The ¦ ¦ ¦Court ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIES Apple's motion to seal this exhibit, with the sole ¦ ¦ ¦exception of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's proposed redactions of royalty information, ¦ ¦PX67 ¦see, e.g., PX67 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Column O; see also Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569 ¦ ¦ ¦(finding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦"pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment¦ ¦ ¦terms" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of a license agreement to "plainly fall[] within the ¦ ¦ ¦definition of 'trade secrets'"). ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, revenue, and cost ¦ ¦ ¦data. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PX102 ¦The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in ¦ ¦ ¦access. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, revenue, and cost ¦ ¦ ¦data. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PX103 ¦The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in ¦ ¦ ¦access. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact profit, profit margin, and cost¦ ¦ ¦data. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PX181 ¦The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in ¦ ¦ ¦access. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. Apple seeks only to redact information related to ¦ ¦ ¦its ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PX182 ¦capacity. The Court finds that "compelling reasons" exist for¦ ¦ ¦sealing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦such data that outweigh the public's interest in access. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, revenue, and cost ¦ ¦ ¦data. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DX541 ¦The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in ¦ ¦ ¦access. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, revenue, and cost ¦ ¦ ¦data. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DX542 ¦The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in ¦ ¦ ¦access. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, revenue, and cost ¦ ¦ ¦data. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DX543 ¦The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in ¦ ¦ ¦access. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, revenue, and cost ¦ ¦ ¦data. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DX544 ¦The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in ¦ ¦ ¦access. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. Apple seeks to seal these documents which contain ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidential financial data as well as analysis and strategy ¦ ¦ ¦discussions ¦ ¦DX581, 587, and¦ ¦ ¦589 ¦based on that data. Although the Court has determined that ¦ ¦ ¦financial ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦data alone is not sealable, these documents contain ¦ ¦ ¦substantially more ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦than data alone. Apple's financial analysis and strategy for future ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦corporate plans have the potential to cause considerable competitive ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦harm to Apple if publically disclosed. Accordingly, the Court finds ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that the risk of "harm [to Apple's] competitive standing" substantially¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦outweighs the public's interest in disclosure and therefore grants ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's motion to seal. See Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(citing Nixon, 543 U.S. at 598). ¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, revenue, and cost data. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DX755¦The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling reasons" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in access. ¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, revenue, and cost data. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DX756¦The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling reasons" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in access. ¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, revenue, and cost data. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DX777¦The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling reasons" ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in access. ¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦DX778¦DENIED as moot, per the Joint Stipulation. See ECF No. 1597. ¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, profit margin, revenue, and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DX779¦cost data. The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦reasons" for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in ¦ ¦ ¦access. ¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact unit sales, profit margin, revenue, and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DX780¦cost data. The Court finds that Apple has failed to provide "compelling¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦reasons" for sealing such data that outweigh the public's interest in ¦ ¦ ¦access. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

3. Apple's Motion to Seal Confidential Source Code

Apple moves to seal trial exhibits PX63, PX121, and DX645 on the grounds that they contain highly confidential source code. Additionally, Apple moves to seal trial exhibit PX110, as it contains detailed schematics of the Apple iBook and Apple iSight. "[S]ource code is undoubtably[sic] a trade secret." Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011). Moreover, Reuters does not oppose this request. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Apple's motion to seal trial exhibits PX63, PX121, PX110, and DX645.

4. Apple's Motion to Seal Confidential and Proprietary Market Research Reports

Apple moves to seal two classes of market research reports: internal reports gathered and prepared by Apple and third-party reports obtained from nonparty IDC, whose business model revolves around gathering and selling such data. The internal reports that Apple moves to seal are contained in trial exhibits DX534, DX614, DX617, DX701, and DX766-776. The third-party reports are contained in DX536 and DX537.

Apple argues that its internal market research reports contain valuable data that could cause it competitive harm if disclosed to its competitors. See Mot. to Seal Tr. Exs. at 11. In particular, Apple argues that because its competitors lack access to Apple's customer base, its competitors cannot replicate these survey results. Accordingly, Apple believes that the data contained in these reports give it "an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it" and thus is sealable as a trade secret. See Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569-70 (adopting the definition of "trade secret" propounded by the Restatement of Torts as something "consisting of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it." (citing Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b)).

The Court is not persuaded. Apple's desire to protect its own market surveys reporting on its consumers' usage habits, buying preferences, and demographics is not sufficient to meet the "compelling reason" standard required for sealing at this stage. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. While Apple is presumably correct that its consumer base is different than Samsung's, Apple's claim that Samsung could not replicate the analysis contained in these exhibits is not convincing. Surveys about consumer preferences are commonplace, and Apple has not argued convincingly that similar data is not already available to its competitors. Moreover, because Apple claims that these surveys inform its future product and marketing plans, it stands to reason that its competitors may infer the most significant results by simply observing Apple's product releases and marketing campaigns.

In short, Apple has not established that it is likely to be harmed by the release of these surveys. In contrast, these surveys play an important role in Apple's damages claims. Apple is asking for a substantial amount of damages, and these surveys play an important role in explaining to the public how Apple arrived at its demand for damages. Thus, Apple's justification for sealing does not outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. Accordingly, the Court finds that Apple has failed to articulate "compelling reasons" for sealing trial exhibits DX534, DX614, DX617, DX701, and DX766-776 and therefore DENIES Apple's motion with respect to these exhibits.

Apple also argues that the Court should seal exhibits DX536 and DX537, which contain a full market research report, prepared by nonparty IDC, as well as the underlying data. According to Apple, IDC's business model revolves around gathering and selling these data and reports, so public disclosure of these exhibits could result in substantial commercial harm. See Mot. to Seal. Tr. Exs. at 12. Additionally, Apple explains that IDC has agreed to allow limited use of its data during trial, and only objects to publications of the full report and data spreadsheet. Accordingly, Apple argues that the public's interest in access to these underlying documents is low, while the potential for harm to IDC is quite high.

The Court agrees. The public's interest in understanding the outcome of this litigation will be sufficiently satisfied by the limited data disclosed at trial. Thus, the marginal public benefit that would result from disclosure of the full reports contained in DX536 and DX537 is low. Additionally, public disclosure would cause significant harm to IDC's competitive standing. In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Indeed, if these reports were made publically available, IDC's customers would have no need to purchase them— disclosure would not only harm IDC's competitive standing, it would completely destroy it. Accordingly, these exhibits are sealable under Ninth Circuit law, id., so the Court GRANTS Apple's motion to seal DX536 and DX537. Nevertheless, the parties have previously represented that they would not need, and would not seek, to introduce the full IDC reports at trial. The Court strongly encourages the parties to use limited IDC data at trial and thus obviate the need for sealing.

5. Apple's Motion to Seal Apple's License Information

Apple moves to seal terms of licensing agreements that it has entered into with various third parties. It argues that disclosing the terms of these licensing agreements will put it at a disadvantage in negotiations for future licensing deals. The Court agrees with respect to pricing terms, royalty rates, and minimum payment terms of the licensing agreements, as set forth in Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569. Disclosing this information to the public will create an asymmetry of information for Apple in the negotiation of future licensing deals. See id. (finding "pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms" of a license agreement to "plainly fall[] within the definition of 'trade secrets'"). Accordingly the Court will follow the Ninth Circuit's guidance and seal all information related to the payment terms of Apple's licensing agreements.

The Court has reviewed each exhibit that Apple seeks to seal. The following table reflects the Court's rulings with respect to Apple's proposed redactions to each trial exhibit. All rulings are pursuant to the rationale articulated above.

B. Apple's Administrative Motion to Seal Prior Motions and Exhibits Thereto

Apple moves to seal exhibits from Daubert motions, motions in limine, and other pretrial motions containing sensitive financial information, arguing that disclosure of such information would cause Apple competitive harm. In particular, Apple seeks to seal information pertaining to Apple's manufacturing capacity, product-specific profits and profit margins, product-specific unit sales and revenue, and costs. According to Apple, disclosure of this information would cause substantial harm to Apple's competitive standing.

As an initial matter, it should be noted that Apple seeks to seal information filed with both dispositive and non-dispositive motions. As noted earlier, in general, a party seeking to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate "good cause" to keep the documents under seal, while a party seeking to seal documents attached to a dispositive motion or used at trial must meet the higher "compelling reasons" standard. See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. This is because non-dispositive motions are almost always unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the underlying issues in the case. See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. In this case, however, Apple seeks to seal documents attached to non-dispositive motions that govern the admissibility of evidence at trial. Because the admissibility of evidence is such a closely contested issue in this trial, which has become crucial to the public's understanding of the proceedings, the Court will apply the "compelling reasons" standard to documents attached to these non-dispositive motions as well.

The Court has reviewed all documents that Apple seeks to seal in its renewed motion to seal, and, consistent with the Court's earlier discussion, Apple will be permitted to seal information related to its production capacity as well as payment terms of licensing agreements. In general, however, all other information will be made public, unless otherwise specified by the Court. The following table contains rulings on each exhibit that Apple moves to seal, consistent with these general principles. For each exhibit to a prior motion where the Court has denied or granted-in-part and denied-in-part Apple's motion to seal, Apple shall refile that exhibit consistent with this Order within seven days. Samsung shall do the same for any exhibit to a prior motion for which its motion to seal has been denied or granted-in-part and denied-in-part.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Exhibit ¦Ruling ¦ +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The Court ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTS Apple's motion with respect to its proposed¦ ¦ ¦redactions in ¦ ¦Exhibit A to Musika ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration in ¦paragraphs 127, 133, 170, and 172. Paragraphs 127 ¦ ¦ ¦and 133 ¦ ¦Support of Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦contain information on Apple's capacity, and ¦ ¦Opposition to ¦paragraphs 170 and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Daubert Motion ¦172 contain payment terms of Nokia and IBM ¦ ¦ ¦cross-licensing deals. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Additionally, the Court GRANTS Apple's motion with¦ ¦ ¦respect to ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦its proposed redactions in Exh. 17, 26, and ¦ ¦ ¦27, all of which contain ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information about Apple's capacity. Finally,¦ ¦ ¦the Court GRANTS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's motion with respect to the proposed ¦ ¦ ¦redactions of capacity ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦data in Exh. 20. The Court DENIES Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦motion with respect to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the rest of its proposed redactions to this ¦ ¦ ¦exhibit, including the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information it seeks to seal regarding ¦ ¦ ¦costs, profits, and margins. ¦ +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. This ¦ ¦ ¦exhibit is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦identical to part of the above exhibit, and ¦ ¦ ¦therefore the Court's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Joby¦ruling is the same: Apple's motion is ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED with respect to ¦ ¦Martin in Support of Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦Daubert Motion ¦the proposed redactions of paragraphs 127 ¦ ¦ ¦and 133 and DENIED ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦with respect to all other proposed ¦ ¦ ¦redactions, except the monetary ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦compensation information in paragraphs 170, ¦ ¦ ¦and 172. ¦ +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. This ¦ ¦ ¦exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦consists of excerpts from the previous ¦ ¦Exhibit Q to Mazza Declaration ¦exhibits, and therefore the ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Court's ruling is the same: Apple's motion ¦ ¦Support of Apple's Opposition to¦is GRANTED with ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Daubert Motion ¦respect to the proposed redactions of ¦ ¦ ¦paragraphs 127 and 133, and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED with respect to all other proposed ¦ ¦ ¦redactions. ¦ +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. The information that Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal in this exhibit is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦identical to information it has sought to ¦ ¦Exhibit 6 to Martin Declaration ¦seal above and therefore the ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Court's ruling is the same: Apple seeks to ¦ ¦Support of Samsung's Daubert ¦seal cost, margin, ¦ ¦Motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦operating expenses, and operating profit ¦ ¦ ¦information. As explained ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦above, this information will not be sealed. ¦ +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. This ¦ ¦ ¦exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦consists of updated or supplemented versions¦ ¦ ¦of the above exhibits, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and therefore the Court's ruling is the ¦ ¦Exhibit B to Musika Declaration ¦same: Apple's motion is ¦ ¦in Support of Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED with respect to Apple's proposed ¦ ¦Opposition to Samsung's Daubert ¦redactions of Exs. ¦ ¦Motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦17.2-S, 26, and 27, all of which contain ¦ ¦ ¦capacity data, as well as ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's proposed redactions to the capacity ¦ ¦ ¦data in Exh. 20-S; ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's motion is DENIED with respect to all¦ ¦ ¦other proposed redactions. ¦ +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. The information that Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal in this exhibit is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 1 to Martin Declaration ¦identical to information it has sought to ¦ ¦in Support of ¦seal above and therefore the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Daubert Motion ¦Court's ruling is the same: Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal profit margin ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information. As explained above, this ¦ ¦ ¦information will not be sealed. ¦ +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. The information that Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal in this exhibit is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit C to Musika Declaration ¦identical to information it has sought to ¦ ¦in Support of Apple's ¦seal above and therefore the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to Samsung's Motion ¦Court's ruling is the same: Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal cost, profit, margin, ¦ ¦for Summary Judgment ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦operating expenses, and operating profit ¦ ¦ ¦information. As explained ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦above, this information will not be sealed. ¦ +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. The information that Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal in this exhibit is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦identical to information it has sought to ¦ ¦ ¦seal above and therefore the ¦ ¦Exhibit E to Musika Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦in Support of Apple's ¦Court's ruling is the same: Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal costs, profits, profit ¦ ¦Opposition to Samsung's Motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦margins, operating expenses, and operating ¦ ¦ ¦profits information. As ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦explained above, this information will not ¦ ¦ ¦be sealed. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦for Summary Judgment ¦ ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The ¦ ¦ ¦information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that Apple seeks to seal in this exhibit is ¦ ¦ ¦identical to information it ¦ ¦Exhibit K to Musika ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦has sought to seal above and therefore the ¦ ¦Apple's ¦Court's ruling is the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to Samsung's ¦same: Apple's motion is GRANTED with respect ¦ ¦Daubert Motion ¦to the capacity ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information that it seeks to redact, but ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED with respect to all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦other proposed redactions. ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. The information that Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal in this exhibit is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit Y to Musika ¦identical to information it has sought to seal¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦above and therefore the ¦ ¦Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Court's ruling is the same: Apple seeks to ¦ ¦Opposition to Samsung's ¦seal cost estimates and ¦ ¦Daubert Motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦margin information. As the Court has explained¦ ¦ ¦above, this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information will not be sealed. ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. The information that Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal in this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exhibit is identical to information it has ¦ ¦Exhibit 10 to Martin ¦sought to seal above and ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦therefore the Court's ruling is the same: ¦ ¦Samsung's Daubert Motion ¦Apple seeks to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦capacity data, which is a protected trade ¦ ¦ ¦secret and is therefore ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sealable, as explained above. ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. The information that Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal in this exhibit is ¦ ¦Exhibit Z to Musika ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦identical to information it has sought to seal¦ ¦Apple's ¦above and therefore the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to Samsung's ¦Court's ruling is the same: Apple seeks to ¦ ¦Daubert Motion ¦seal income and cost ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information. As the Court has explained above,¦ ¦ ¦this information will not be sealed. ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. The information that Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal in this exhibit is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦identical to information it has sought to seal¦ ¦ ¦above and therefore the ¦ ¦Exhibit 7 to Martin ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦Court's ruling is the same: Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦seal costs, profits, ¦ ¦Samsung's Daubert Motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦margins, operating expenses, and operating ¦ ¦ ¦profits information. As ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the Court has explained above, this ¦ ¦ ¦information will not be sealed. ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Although ¦ ¦ ¦the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Court has indicated that it will seal the ¦ ¦ ¦financial terms of licensing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreements, Apple has over-designated the ¦ ¦ ¦portions of this exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦worthy of sealing. The Court GRANTS Apple's ¦ ¦Samsung Reply in Support of ¦motion only with ¦ ¦Motion to Strike and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦respect to the proposed redactions of the ¦ ¦Wagner Declaration in Support ¦monetary compensation ¦ ¦Thereof ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed on pages 2-3 of the Reply, the ¦ ¦ ¦proposed redactions on ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦page 5 of the Reply, and the proposed ¦ ¦ ¦redactions to paragraphs 23 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and 26 of the attached Wagner Declaration. The¦ ¦ ¦Court DENIES ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's motion with respect to all other ¦ ¦ ¦proposed redactions. ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The Court ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTS Apple's motion with respect to the ¦ ¦ ¦proposed redactions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of paragraphs 178-80, 188, and 193, all of ¦ ¦ ¦which contain a ¦ ¦Exhibit B to Wagner ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦discussion of supply constraints. Although not¦ ¦ ¦explicitly addressed ¦ ¦Samsung's Reply in Support of ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Strike ¦earlier, disclosure of supply constraints ¦ ¦ ¦presents the same risk of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦competitive harm as disclosure of capacity ¦ ¦ ¦information and is of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦similarly minimal relevance to the underlying ¦ ¦ ¦issues of the litigation. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦Additionally, the Court finds that compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons exist for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sealing information in paragraphs 397-98, 404, and ¦ ¦ ¦524, all of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦which contain payment details of Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦acquisition of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦FingerWorks. Such information implicates the same ¦ ¦ ¦considerations ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦as the payment details of licensing ¦ ¦ ¦agreements-namely that public ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosure of these details would disadvantage ¦ ¦ ¦Apple in future ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦acquisition negotiations. Apple has over-designated¦ ¦ ¦these ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦paragraphs for sealing, however, so only portions ¦ ¦ ¦of them will be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sealed. In particular, the Court will not seal the ¦ ¦ ¦first two sentences ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of paragraphs 397, but will seal the remainder of ¦ ¦ ¦paragraphs 397- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦98. Additionally, the Court will seal only the ¦ ¦ ¦monetary ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦considerations contained in paragraphs 404 and 524 ¦ ¦ ¦(Fig. 68), but ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIES Apple's motion as to the rest of paragraphs ¦ ¦ ¦404 and 524. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The Court DENIES Apple's motion with respect to all¦ ¦ ¦other proposed redactions. ¦ +-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibit AA to Musika ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to exclude operating margin ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of¦information. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's Opposition to ¦As explained above, this information will not be ¦ ¦Samsung's Daubert Motion ¦sealed. ¦ +-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibit P1 to Hecht ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of¦GRANTED. Apple seeks to seal information relating ¦ ¦ ¦to license ¦ ¦Samsung's Opposition to ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's Motion for ¦royalty terms between Apple and various third ¦ ¦ ¦parties. ¦ ¦Partial Summary Judgment ¦ ¦ +-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. Apple seeks to seal payment and royalty ¦ ¦ ¦information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for specific licensing agreements as well as ¦ ¦ ¦pricing terms related to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 32 to Martin ¦particular components in Apple products. Such ¦ ¦Declaration in ¦information is trade ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Support of Samsung's ¦secret under Electronic Arts. 298 Fed. App'x at ¦ ¦Daubert Motion ¦569 (finding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦"pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed ¦ ¦ ¦minimum payment ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦terms" of a license agreement to "plainly fall[] ¦ ¦ ¦within the definition of 'trade secrets'"). ¦ +-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact information that only¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦acknowledges the existence of various licensing ¦ ¦Exhibit 67 to Arnold ¦agreements. As ¦ ¦Declaration in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the Court has explained above, the mere existence ¦ ¦Support of Samsung's ¦of a licensing ¦ ¦Motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreement is not a trade secret and therefore will ¦ ¦for Summary Judgment ¦not be sealed ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under the "compelling reasons" standard for ¦ ¦ ¦dispositive motions. ¦ +-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact information ¦ ¦ ¦reflecting only the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦scope of certain licensing agreements with third ¦ ¦Exhibit A to Ordover ¦parties. As the ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Court has explained above, payment terms are the ¦ ¦in Support of apple's ¦only sealable ¦ ¦Opposition to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦elements of licensing agreements under the ¦ ¦Samsung's Motion for ¦"compelling reasons" ¦ ¦Summary ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦standard. Accordingly information related to the ¦ ¦ ¦scope of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreements, as opposed to compensation, will not be¦ ¦ ¦sealed. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Judgment ¦ ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Apple seeks to redact information that¦ ¦ ¦only ¦ ¦Exhibit C to Wagner ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration in ¦acknowledges the existence of various ¦ ¦ ¦licensing agreements. As ¦ ¦Support of Samsung's Reply in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the Court has explained above, the mere ¦ ¦Support of Motion to Strike ¦existence of a licensing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreement is not a trade secret and therefore ¦ ¦ ¦will not be sealed. ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. Apple seeks to seal this document in ¦ ¦ ¦its entirety as it ¦ ¦Exhibits 20 and 21 to Price ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦consists entirely of capacity information, ¦ ¦ ¦including capacity broken ¦ ¦in Support of Samsung's Reply ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦down by product, for 2010 and 2011. As ¦ ¦ ¦explained above, capacity ¦ ¦Support of Motion to Strike ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦data meets the "compelling reasons" standard ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing. ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Apple ¦ ¦ ¦seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦seal this document in its entirety as it ¦ ¦ ¦contains a notice of election ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦pursuant to a licensing agreement between ¦ ¦Exhibit 1 to Price Declaration¦Apple and a third party ¦ ¦in Support of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that contains royalty information. The Court ¦ ¦Samsung's Reply in Support of ¦GRANTS Apple's ¦ ¦Motion to Strike ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦motion to seal insofar as it implicates ¦ ¦ ¦royalty information, but ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIES Apple's motion to seal the whole ¦ ¦ ¦document as the Court ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sees no reason why Apple cannot redact only ¦ ¦ ¦the sealable information. ¦ +------------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. Apple seeks to seal licensing ¦ ¦ ¦agreements between ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple and various third parties. Although the ¦ ¦ ¦Court has already ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ruled that only payment information may be ¦ ¦ ¦sealed in summaries of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦licensing agreements, the Court has not yet ¦ ¦ ¦ruled on sealing motions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦related to the licensing agreements ¦ ¦ ¦themselves. Such agreements ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦contain a whole host of terms (e.g. ¦ ¦ ¦termination conditions, side- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreements, waivers) that are irrelevant to ¦ ¦ ¦matters in this litigation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 2-6 & 13 to Price ¦Indeed, because the parties have prepared ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦summary charts of all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Reply in Support of ¦their license agreements for trial, the ¦ ¦Motion to Strike ¦marginal value to the public of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosing these entire agreements is low. ¦ ¦ ¦Conversely, disclosure of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦these full documents could result in ¦ ¦ ¦significant competitive harm to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the licensing parties as it would provide ¦ ¦ ¦insight into the structure of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦their licensing deals, forcing them into an ¦ ¦ ¦uneven bargaining ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦position in future negotiations. Accordingly, ¦ ¦ ¦the Court finds that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦"compelling reasons" exist for sealing that ¦ ¦ ¦outweigh the public's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦interest in accessing these documents used ¦ ¦ ¦only in Samsung's motion to strike. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

C. Samsung's Administrative Motion to Seal Trial Exhibits

Samsung moves to seal trial exhibits containing sensitive financial information, confidential source code, and future business plans, arguing that disclosure of such information would cause Samsung competitive harm. Samsung's Mot. to Seal Trial Exs. at 3-6. In particular, Samsung seeks to seal information pertaining product-specific profit and cost information, including sales figures, manufacturing costs, operating expenses, operating profits, and gross margins. Id. at 4. Additionally, Samsung moves to seal an exhibit containing portions of its proprietary source code. Finally, Samsung moves that portions of exhibits containing future business plans—portions that will not be shown to the jury—neither be admitted into evidence nor entered into the public record. According to Samsung, disclosure of this information would cause substantial harm to its competitive standing. Id.

Having determined the general categories of financial data that may be sealed and having reviewed each of the documents that Samsung seeks to seal, the Court now applies these principles to the particular documents that Samsung has moved to seal. For the sake of efficiency, the Court presents its conclusions in the table below. All rulings are consistent with the rationale articulated above.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Trial Exhibit ¦Ruling ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal confidential financial ¦ ¦ ¦information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PX25 ¦related to Samsung's per-product profit margins. As explained¦ ¦ ¦above, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦such information is not sealable under the "compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons" standard. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal confidential financial ¦ ¦ ¦information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦related to the premium built into Samsung's pricing as well ¦ ¦PX27 ¦as its profit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦margin on particular phones. As explained above, such ¦ ¦ ¦information is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not sealable under the "compelling reasons" standard. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal confidential financial ¦ ¦ ¦information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦related to costs incurred by Samsung during its manufacturing¦ ¦ ¦process ¦ ¦PX28 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦as well as incremental and operating profit on particular ¦ ¦ ¦phones. As ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦explained above, such information is not sealable under the ¦ ¦ ¦"compelling reasons" standard. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal information related to its ¦ ¦ ¦costs ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦incurred in manufacturing particular products, materials ¦ ¦ ¦costs for those ¦ ¦PX29 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦products, and Samsung's profits and profit margins for each ¦ ¦ ¦product. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦As explained above, such information is not sealable under ¦ ¦ ¦the "compelling reasons" standard. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. Samsung seeks to redact reproductions of its ¦ ¦ ¦confidential ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PX31 ¦source code. As explained above, such information readily ¦ ¦ ¦qualifies as ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a "trade secret" under Ninth Circuit law, and therefore ¦ ¦ ¦"compelling reasons" exist for sealing. ¦ +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Samsung seeks to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidential financial information as well as information ¦ ¦ ¦about its ¦ ¦PX60 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦future revenue projections and product strategy. Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦sealing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦attempt is overbroad. The Court GRANTS Samsung's motion with ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦respect to information about future product strategy and future ¦ ¦ ¦revenue ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦projections, but DENIES it with respect to its past and current ¦ ¦ ¦financial ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information. Because this adjudication is concerned with Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦past and current conduct, information related to Samsung's future ¦ ¦ ¦is of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦limited value to the public. Moreover, such information has the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦potential to cause Samsung significant competitive harm. ¦ +---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal confidential financial information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦including a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred in ¦ ¦ ¦manufacturing ¦ ¦PX180 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦various products. As the Court has explained earlier, such ¦ ¦ ¦information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦is not sealable under the "compelling reasons" standard. ¦ +---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED as moot. Samsung requests only that the portions of these ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exhibits not shown to the jury and not admitted into evidence at ¦ ¦ ¦trial be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sealed. The parties are only required to make publicly available ¦ ¦ ¦the ¦ ¦PX183-185¦ ¦ ¦ ¦documents (or parts thereof) that are admitted into evidence at ¦ ¦ ¦trial and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦given to the jury. Accordingly, no motion is needed for the ¦ ¦ ¦portions of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦documents that are not admitted into evidence at trial and not ¦ ¦ ¦provided to the jury. ¦ +---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal confidential financial information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦including a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred in ¦ ¦ ¦manufacturing ¦ ¦DX676 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦various products. As the Court has explained earlier, such ¦ ¦ ¦information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦is not sealable under the "compelling reasons" standard. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

D. Samsung's Administrative Motion to Seal Prior Motions and Exhibits Thereto

Samsung moves to seal a number of exhibits from prior motions containing sensitive financial information, arguing that disclosure of such information would cause it competitive harm. In general, the financial information that Samsung seeks to seal is quite similar to the information that Apple had moved to seal, and accordingly the Court's rulings will be consistent: Samsung will be permitted to seal information related to its production capacity as well as payment terms of licensing agreements. In general, however, all other financial information will be made public, unless otherwise specified by the Court.

Additionally, Samsung moves to seal information disclosing its tax accounting procedures, particularly related to a tax treaty that allows Samsung to pay taxes in Korea on revenue from products sold in the United States. See, e.g., Apple's Opp. to Samsung's Mots. in Limine at 28-29. While Samsung does not address this issue directly in its renewed motion to seal, it did address it briefly in a declaration filed in support of its original motion, arguing that "competitors would use Samsung's internal taxation strategies to structure their own financial and product plans in order to better compete with Samsung." ECF No. 1319 ¶ 14. This argument is both conclusory and unpersuasive. It is not clear how disclosure of information related to its tax treatment would place

Samsung at a competitive disadvantage. Moreover, Samsung's tax accounting procedures are relevant to understanding the apportionment of damages among the three defendants as well as the importance of Apple's inducement argument. Thus, the public has a significant interest in accessing this information. Accordingly, the Court finds that Samsung has not articulated a "compelling reason" for withholding information about its tax structure from the public and therefore such information is not sealable under Ninth Circuit law.

The following table contains rulings on each exhibit that Samsung moves to seal, consistent with the discussion and analysis provided above.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Exhibit ¦Ruling ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to exclude the amount ¦ ¦ ¦of costs that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Exclude Opinions of ¦Samsung incurred in making and selling the ¦ ¦Certain of Apple's Experts ¦accused devices. As ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the Court has explained above, this ¦ ¦ ¦information will not be sealed. ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to exclude information ¦ ¦Exhibit 1 to Declaration of ¦regarding ¦ ¦Joby ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's revenues, pricing, profit, and ¦ ¦Martin in Support of Samsung's ¦margins. As the Court has ¦ ¦Daubert Motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦explained above, this information will not be¦ ¦ ¦sealed. ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal two classes of ¦ ¦ ¦information: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information related to proposed royalty rates¦ ¦ ¦for a licensing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreement between Apple and Samsung and ¦ ¦ ¦confidential financial ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information, including revenues, profits, ¦ ¦ ¦profit margins, costs, and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦tax rates. Although the Court has generally ¦ ¦ ¦allowed royalty terms ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of licensing agreements to be sealed, Samsung¦ ¦ ¦is seeking to seal a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 3 to Declaration of ¦proposed royalty rate ¦ ¦Joby ¦between the two litigants. This information¦ ¦ ¦is ¦ ¦Martin in Support of Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦Daubert Motion ¦important to the parties' damages ¦ ¦ ¦calculations and therefore ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦important for the public's understanding of ¦ ¦ ¦this case. Moreover, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this litigation will end up publically ¦ ¦ ¦placing a value on the two ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦companies' patent portfolios, so the argument¦ ¦ ¦that prior proposed ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦royalty rates will harm future negotiations ¦ ¦ ¦is unpersuasive. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Additionally, the Court has already explained¦ ¦ ¦that financial ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information will not be sealed under the ¦ ¦ ¦"compelling reasons" standard. ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal revenue, cost, ¦ ¦ ¦profit, and profit ¦ ¦Exhibit 5 to Declaration of ¦ ¦ ¦Joby ¦margin information. See ¶¶ 14, 32, 40 ¦ ¦ ¦(revenues, costs, profits, and ¦ ¦Martin in Support of Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦Daubert Motion ¦profit margins). The Court has found that ¦ ¦ ¦compelling reasons do not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exist for sealing such information. ¦ +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibit 2 to Declaration of ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal cost and profit¦ ¦Joby ¦information. The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Martin in Support of Samsung's ¦Court has found that compelling reasons do ¦ ¦Daubert ¦not exist for sealing such information. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Motion ¦ ¦ +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibit F to Musika ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration in ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal profit, revenue, and¦ ¦ ¦cost ¦ ¦Support of Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to ¦information. The Court has found that compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons do not exist for sealing such information.¦ ¦Samsung's Motion for ¦ ¦ ¦Summary Judgment ¦ ¦ +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibit G to Musika ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration in ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal profit, revenue, and¦ ¦ ¦cost ¦ ¦Support of Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to ¦information. The Court has found that compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons do not exist for sealing such information.¦ ¦Samsung's Motion for ¦ ¦ ¦Summary Judgment ¦ ¦ +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibit O to Maharbiz ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal cost information. ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦The Court has ¦ ¦Apple's Opposition to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦found that compelling reasons do not exist for ¦ ¦Samsung's Motion for ¦sealing such information. ¦ ¦Summary Judgment ¦ ¦ +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibit 37 to Bressler ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal cost information. ¦ ¦ ¦The Court has ¦ ¦Apple's Opposition to ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's ¦found that compelling reasons do not exist for ¦ ¦ ¦sealing such information. ¦ ¦Motion for Summary ¦ ¦ ¦Judgment ¦ ¦ +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibit B to Wagner ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal cost, profit, unit ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦sales, revenue, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Reply in Support¦and tax arrangement information. The Court has ¦ ¦of ¦found that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Daubert Motion ¦compelling reasons do not exist for sealing such ¦ ¦ ¦information. ¦ +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal profit, cost, and ¦ ¦ ¦tax arrangement ¦ ¦Apple's Oppositions to ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Motions in ¦information. The Court has found that compelling ¦ ¦Limine ¦reasons do not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exist for sealing such information. ¦ +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibit 42 to Kanada ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal profit information. ¦ ¦Declaration in Support of ¦The Court has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's Oppositions to ¦found that compelling reasons do not exist for ¦ ¦Samsung's Motions in ¦sealing such information. ¦ ¦Limine ¦ ¦ +--------------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal profit margin ¦ ¦Exhibit 43 to Kanada ¦information. The ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Court has found that compelling reasons do not ¦ ¦ ¦exist for sealing ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦in Support of Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦Oppositions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦such information. ¦ ¦to Samsung's Motions in ¦ ¦ ¦Limine ¦ ¦ +------------------------+----------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibit 44 to Kanada ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦DENIED. Samsung seeks to seal unit sales and profit ¦ ¦ ¦margin ¦ ¦in Support of Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦Oppositions ¦information. The Court has found that compelling ¦ ¦ ¦reasons do not exist for sealing such information. ¦ ¦to Samsung's Motions in ¦ ¦ ¦Limine ¦ ¦ +------------------------+----------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The Court ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 10 to ¦GRANTS Samsung's motion to seal capacity ¦ ¦Declaration of Joby ¦information, but ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Martin in Support of ¦DENIES it with respect to the rest of the proposed ¦ ¦Samsung's Daubert Motion¦redactions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(including redactions of profit and revenue ¦ ¦ ¦information). ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

III. Third Party Sealing Motions

In addition to the litigants, a number of third parties to this case have also filed administrative motions to seal. The overwhelming majority of these third party filings seek to seal the financial terms of licensing agreements entered into with one of the litigants. As the Ninth Circuit held in In re Electronic Arts, "pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms" plainly fall within the definition of "trade secrets" for purposes of sealing motions. 298 Fed. App'x at 569. Moreover, the Electronic Arts court adopted the definition of "trade secret" propounded by the Restatement of Torts as something "consisting of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it." Id. (citing Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). Accordingly, the Court will seal all information related to licensing agreements' pricing terms, royalty rates, and payments. The public release of such information would place these third-parties in a weakened bargaining position in future negotiations, thereby giving their customers and competitors a significant advantage. This is true of all licensing agreements sought to be sealed by the parties, including those agreements that have already expired. Indeed, parties seeking to seal the financial terms of expired licensing agreements have argued persuasively that the financial terms of such agreements are probative of the terms of current licensing deals—in fact, many current licensing deals cover technologies previously licensed in agreements that have since expired. Accordingly, disclosure of expired licensing agreements' pricing would lead to the same competitive harms as disclosure of current licensing agreements' pricing. All other licensing information, however, including the technologies being licensed, will not be sealed. No party has articulated how disclosure of this non-financial information will result in future harm; accordingly, no party has met the burden of providing a "compelling reason" to withhold this information from the public.

The bulk of the third party sealing motions are directed towards two trial exhibits: PX77 and DX630. Both of these exhibits contain charts summarizing licensing agreements between the litigants and third parties. PX77 organizes this licensing agreement information into columns labeled "[Apple or Samsung] License Partner"; "Bates Range"; "Effective Date"; "Expiration Date"; "Term of Agreement"; "Monetary Consideration"; "Includes Rights to UMTS-Related Patents?"; "Includes Rights to Other Patents?"; and "Cross License?". DX630 organizes this information into columns labeled "Licensee"; "Licensor"; "Title"; "Effective Date"; "Date Last Signed"; "Term"; "Licensed Products/Technology"; "Geographic Scope"; "Payments"; and "Source." Consistent with Electronic Arts, the Court will grant motions to seal information in the "Monetary Consideration" column of the PX77 summary and the "Payments" column of the DX630 summary. The Court will deny motions to seal information in other columns of either summary. 298 Fed. App'x at 569 ("[P]ricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms . . . plainly fall[] within the definition of 'trade secrets.'").

Although both PX77 and DX630 are Rule 1006 summaries, some of the third parties have also moved to redact substantial portions of the underlying license agreements on which these trial exhibits are based. Because these exhibits are summaries, however, the underlying documents, while admissible, are not being admitted into evidence themselves. Therefore, requests by third parties to seal the actual licensing agreements summarized in PX77 and DX630 are DENIED as moot.

Additionally, this Court has already ruled that "the whole trial is going to be open." Order Den. Sealing Mot. 3, ECF No. 1256 (citation omitted). Accordingly, all motions to seal the courtroom during trial or to seal portions of the trial transcript are hereby DENIED.

The Court briefly notes that the parties have submitted a Joint Stipulation that the parties argue obviates the need for the Court's rulings on third party sealing motions. See ECF No. 1597 at 2. In particular, the parties have agreed to substitute "neutral, non-identifying designations (such as 'Party A') for all third parties identified in [] licensing agreements, summaries or charts to the extent such third parties will not be the subject of testimony." Id. Research in Motion ("RIM") filed an objection to the parties' stipulation as it relates to third party licensing terms. ECF No. 1613. As Research in Motion points out, the stipulation would effectively permit disclosure of the identity and the terms of the licensing agreements. This is because "RIM (as with all other nonparties) has already filed a redacted version of Trial Exhibit 630, identifying RIM, with the Court. Dkt. 1396-1. It would be simple for one of RIM's competitors to match the non-redacted portions of the exhibit filed by RIM with the information that would be supplied by Trial Exhibit 630 pursuant to the Stipulation, and thereby gain access to the very information that RIM (and all other nonparties) sought to protect." ECF No. 1613 at 1. Unfortunately, the parties' solution to this issue is tardy, and does not resolve the issue of balancing the competing interests. Therefore, the parties' stipulation as to the third party licensing agreements is DENIED. The Court issues the following rulings as to the third party requests to seal.

A. Nokia's Motion to Seal

Nokia moves to seal information contained in licensing agreement summaries in two trial exhibits: PX77 and DX630. In particular, Nokia moves to seal information contained in the Expiration Date, Term of Agreement, and Monetary Considerations columns of the summary contained in PX77 as well as the Term, Licensed Products/Technology, and Payments columns of DX630. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS Nokia's motion with regards to the "Monetary Considerations" column of the summary contained in PX77 as well as the "Payments" column of DX630 and DENIES Nokia's motion in all other respects.

B. Interdigital's Motion to Seal

Interdigital moves to seal portions of a licensing agreement between Interdigital and Samsung as well as information relating to an Apple/Interdigital licensing agreement contained in the DX630 licensing agreement summary. Interdigital does not seek to seal any summary information of the Interdigital/Samsung agreement contained in either PX77 or DX630. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS Interdigital's motion with respect to the information in the "Payments" column of DX630 concerning the Apple/Interdigital agreement only. The Court DENIES Interdigital's motion with respect to information in the "Licensed Products/Technology" column of DX630 concerning the Apple/Interdigital agreement and DENIES Interdigital's motion to seal the Samsung/Interdigital licensing agreement as moot, since the licensing agreements underlying PX77 and DX630 are not being admitted into evidence. Accordingly, Interdigital's motion to seal is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

C. Koninklijke Philips Electronics' Motion to Seal

Philips moves to seal information contained in the "Payments" columns of trial exhibit DX630. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS Philips' motion.

D. IBM's Motion to Seal

IBM moves to seal only the payment amounts contained in the "Payments" column of trial exhibit DX630. Although third-party Reuters argues that IBM's motion is moot because IBM served its licensing agreement as an exhibit to IBM's motion to seal on all parties and intervenors, including Reuters, such a limited disclosure does not strip IBM's information of its "trade secret" status. To the Court's knowledge, none of the information that IBM seeks to seek has been disclosed to the public, and therefore IBM's motion is not moot.

Reuters has threatened to publish IBM's licensing agreement, but to the Court's knowledge such publication has not yet occurred. IBM was unsuccessful in its attempt to secure a TRO from Judge Grewal enjoining Reuters from publishing this information. However, IBM served its licensing agreement on Reuters because Reuters is now a party to the suit, having prevailed on its motion to intervene. As a party to the suit, Reuters is governed by the Protective Order. See ECF 687 (stating that a "[p]arty" for purposes of the Protective Order "means any party to this case, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and outside counsel and their support staffs) (emphasis added). Accordingly, if Reuters does publish this information, it will be in direct violation of this Protective Order. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS IBM's motion.

E. Toshiba's Motion to Seal

Toshiba moves to seal information contained in the "Term," "Licensed Products/Technology," and "Payments" columns of trial exhibit DX630. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS Toshiba's motions with respect to the information contained in the "Payments" column, but DENIES it with respect to the information contained in the "Licensed Products/Technology" and "Term" columns. Accordingly, Toshiba's motion to seal is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

F. Microsoft's Motion to Seal

Microsoft moves to seal information contained in the "Effective Date," "Date Last Signed," "Term," "Licensed Products/Technology," "Geographic Scope," and "Payments" columns of trial exhibit DX630. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS Microsoft's motion with respect to the information contained in the "Payments" column, but DENIES it with respect to the information contained in the "Effective Date," "Date Last Signed," "Term" "Licensed Products/Technology," and "Geographic Scope," columns. Accordingly, Microsoft's motion to seal is GRANED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

G. Qualcomm's Motion to Seal

Qualcomm moves to seal information contained in the "Term" and "Payments" columns of trial exhibit DX630. Ordinarily, the Court would grant Qualcomm's motion, based on the rationale articulated above. In this case, however, Qualcomm has already made this information public by inadvertently posting it in un-redacted form on ECF. Although the Court understands that this public disclosure was unintentional, it nevertheless finds that the information that Qualcomm seeks to redact is no longer "secret," and therefore no longer qualifies for protection as a "trade secret." See Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b ("The subject matter of a trade secret must be secret."); see also Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569-70 (adopting the Restatement's definition of "trade secret").

Qualcomm contends that because it locked, as soon as possible, the incorrectly filed document, thereby removing it from public access, the information it seeks to seal is still worthy of sealing protection. Moreover, Qualcomm argues that "secret" is not a binary determination, but rather a sliding scale. As Qualcomm notes, however, Reuters has already published a story containing the information that Qualcomm now seeks to seal. Nevertheless, the public's interest in permanent and continuing access to the royalty payment terms of Qualcomm's licensing agreement from the official court records remains low, as the PX77 and DX630 summaries contain the licensing information upon which the parties will rely at trial.

Moreover, the very fact that Qualcomm still seeks to maintain this royalty payment information under seal, even after it has been briefly disclosed, indicates that Qualcomm still does gain some competitive advantage from limiting disclosure of this information. See Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569-70 (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). As Qualcomm explains, a future licensing partner is far more likely to discover this information if it is published in the official court records than if it is only published by Reuters. Thus, limiting further public disclosure would help prevent further competitive harm to Qualcomm. Accordingly, the Court finds that compelling reasons exist for sealing this information and therefore GRANTS Qualcomm's motion to seal.

H. Research in Motion's Motion to Seal

Research in Motion moves to seal information contained in the "Term," "Licensed Products/Technology," and "Payments" columns of trial exhibit DX630. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS Research in Motion's motion with respect to the information contained in the "Payments" column, but DENIES it with respect to the information contained in the "Licensed Products/Technology" and "Term" columns. Thus, Research in Motion's motion to seal is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

I. Motorola Mobility's Motion to Seal

Motorola Mobility moves to seal information contained in the "Monetary Consideration," "Includes Rights to UMTS-Related Patents?," "Includes Rights to Other Patents?," and "Cross License?" columns of trial exhibit PX77 as well as the "Licensed Products/Technology" and "Payments" columns of trial exhibit DX630. Additionally, Motorola Mobility also moves to seal portions of trial exhibit DX631, which contains tables summarizing rate, revenue, and royalty information. Finally, Motorola Mobility also moves to seal portions of PX82, a Samsung licensing presentation containing proposed terms and conditions of a Samsung-Motorola license, forecasts of Motorola sales, and proposed royalty rates and payments for the Samsung-Motorola agreement. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS Motorola's motion with respect to the proposed redactions of information contained in the "Monetary Consideration" column of PX77, information contained in the "Payment" column of DX630, information contained in DX631, and information contained in PX82. However, the Court DENIES Motorola Mobility's motion with respect to the information contained in the other columns of PX77 and DX630. Thus, Motorola Mobility's motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

J. Intel's Motion to Seal

Intel moves to seal Intel source code, the Intel X-GOLD 61x Product Specification, the Intel UMTS RLC Detailed Design Description, and Exhibits 4 and 7 to the Selwyn Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 925) which describe Intel's scrambling code circuitry. Additionally, Intel moves that the parties be required to use redacted versions of the Samsung-Intel cross-license agreement (and amendments) and Intel invoices to Apple.

Intel argues that the source code, Product Specification, and Detailed Design Description all constitute trade secrets. That Intel's source code is a trade secret, and therefore sealable, is clear. See Agency Solutions.Com, 819 F. Supp. 2d at 1017 ("[S]ource code is undoubtably[sic] a trade secret."). Similarly, the Product Specification, which provides a complete specification of the X-GOLD 61x system and specifies the algorithms used by each constituent module; and the Detailed Design Description, which identifies the functions, input and output variables, and data structures used by each module, are also trade secrets. Accordingly all three are sealable under Ninth Circuit law, so the Court GRANTS Intel's motions with respect to these documents. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

Additionally, Intel argues that Exhibits 4 and 7 of the Selwyn Declaration should be sealed, as they provide a detailed analysis of Intel's source code and circuitry. Additionally, Intel notes that when this Court granted Apple' summary judgment motion on non-infringement, it did so on the basis of claim construction and the application of those claims to the 3GPP TS 25.213 standard. The Court did not rely on Intel's source code, circuitry, or any expert analysis thereof. Accordingly, Intel argues, even though summary judgment is dispositive, the public's interest in these particular documents is relatively low. The Court agrees with Intel. Source code and circuitry do constitute trade secrets, and the Court has a duty to prevent court documents from being used "'as sources of business information that might harm [Intel's] competitive standing.'" See In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Thus the Court GRANTS Intel's motion with respect to these documents.

Finally, Intel argues that the parties should be required to use redacted versions of an Intel-Samsung cross-licensing agreement and an Intel invoice to Apple if they choose to introduce such evidence at trial. Intel argues that this agreement and invoice are relevant only to Apple's exhaustion defense, and that the terms it proposes to redact are not necessary to understanding this defense. In particular, Intel argues that it seeks to redact commercially sensitive provisions of the cross-licensing agreement and pricing information on the invoice. Intel points out that Samsung used a redacted version of this same licensing agreement in open court in a related Korean litigation. Accordingly, Intel argues that the public's interest in seeing the redacted portions of these documents is low, while its interest in maintaining confidentiality over commercially sensitive information is high.

Consistent with the Court's earlier analysis, Intel's motion is GRANTED with respect to the payment terms of the licensing agreement only, and denied as to the rest of the licensing agreement. However, the Court hopes that Intel can reach an agreement with the parties to use a redacted version of the licensing agreement in this trial, similar to the agreement reached in the Korean litigation.

K. Dolby Laboratories' Motion to Seal

Dolby moves to seal information contained in the "Payments" column of trial exhibit DX630. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS Dolby's motion.

L. Siemens AG's Motion to Seal

Siemens moves to seal information contained in the "Expiration Date," "Term of Agreement," and "Monetary Consideration" columns of trial exhibit PX77. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS Siemens's motion with regards to the information in the "Monetary Consideration" column only, and DENIES it with regards to the information in the "Expiration Date" and "Term of Agreement Columns."

M. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson's Motion to Seal

Ericsson moves to seal information contained in the "Expiration Date," "Term of Agreement," and "Monetary Consideration" columns of trial exhibit PX77, and the "Term," "Licensed Products/Technology," "Geographic Scope," and "Payments" columns of trial exhibit DX630. Additionally, Ericsson also moves to seal portions of trial exhibit DX631, which contains tables summarizing royalty rates, revenue, royalty, and rate information. Consistent with the principles articulated above, the Court GRANTS Ericsson's motion with respect to the information in the "Monetary Consideration" column of PX77, the information in the "Payments" column of DX630, and the information it seeks to redact in DX631. The Court DENIES the remainder of Ericsson's motion. Thus, Ericsson's motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Case Details

Citations

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citations