§Why CasetextPricing

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

MOTION to Intervene NON-PARTY ROVI CORP.S NOTICE OF MOTION AND COMBINED MOTION FOR

7 Cited authorities

  1. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu

    447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 5,785 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]hose who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that compelling reasons support secrecy"

  2. Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Ins. Co.

    966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 1,788 times
    Holding that "an independent jurisdictional basis is not required [in this case] because intervenors do not seek to litigate a claim on the merits"

  3. U.S. v. Chung

    659 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 45 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the information at issue derived economic value from being kept a secret because “the information could assist a competitor in understanding how [the trade secret owner] approaches problem-solving and in figuring out how to best bid on a similar project in the future”

  4. Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. LSI Corp.

    878 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D. Del. 2012)   Cited 31 times
    Granting motion to seal portions of judicial transcript addressing terms of patent licensing agreement

  5. Walker v. University Books, Inc.

    602 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 40 times
    In Walker the plaintiff brought an action for copyright infringement alleging that blueprints prepared by defendants in the manufacture of "I Ching" fortune-telling cards constituted unauthorized copies.

  6. Nokia Corp. v. Research in Motion Ltd.

    Case No.: C 12-05992 PSG (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2012)

    Case No.: C 12-05992 PSG 12-07-2012 NOKIA CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, et al., Respondents. PAUL S. GREWAL ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PETITIONERS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL (Re: Docket No. 6) Petitioners Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, "Nokia") administratively move to seal portions of an international arbitration award and an entire patent license agreement. Respondents Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion Corporation (collectively, "RIM")

  7. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,538 times   650 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37