UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
December 3, 2012
APPLE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A KOREAN CORPORATION; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE HTC LICENSE; MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Before the Court is Samsung's motion for leave to file the Declaration of Robert J. Becher Regarding Samsung's Submission of HTC Settlement Agreement In Support of Opposition to 20 Apple's Motion for Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancement ("motion for leave to file 21 HTC license"). ECF No. 2177-2. Also before the Court is Samsung's motion to file under seal 22 both portions of the motion for leave to file HTC license, and the license agreement itself. Because 23 the parties require a ruling on these motions quickly, the Court will keep its discussion and analysis 24 brief. 25
The HTC agreement did not exist until November 11, 2012, and Samsung did not receive it 26 until Judge Grewal granted Samsung's motion to compel on November 21, 2012, ECF No. 2158 27 and Apple produced the document five days later. The Court agrees that the license agreement 28 may be relevant to the permanent injunction analysis, and that Samsung could not have presented it sooner. Accordingly, Samsung's motion for leave to file HTC license is GRANTED. Further, the 2 Court finds that the relevance of the agreement can be adequately addressed at the December 6, 3
As regards the motion to file under seal, this Court has repeatedly explained that only the 5 pricing and royalty terms of license agreements may be sealed. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 1649, 2168. 6
Only these terms, and not the rest of the agreement, meet the "compelling reasons" standard 7 articulated by the Ninth Circuit for sealing filings related to dispositive motions and trial. See 8 2012 hearing, without further briefing. 4
Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). There are 9 compelling reasons to seal pricing and royalty terms, as they may place the parties to the agreement 10 at a disadvantage in future negotiations, but there is nothing in the remainder of the agreement that presents a sufficient risk of competitive harm to justify keeping it from the public. Accordingly,
Samsung's motion to seal is GRANTED with regard to the pricing and royalty terms of the 13 agreement only, and DENIED with regard to the rest of the agreement. 14
Samsung's proposed redactions cover information that is properly sealable under the "compelling 16 reasons" standard. The proposed redactions cover only: (1) the fact that Apple has made an 17 argument regarding license agreements in its permanent injunction motion; and (2) which patents 18 are covered by the agreement. Apple has already articulated its argument concerning license 19 agreements in two publically filed documents. See ECF Nos. 1982-1 at 10; 2127-2 at 7. Thus, this 20 information is not confidential. And the Court has just explained that the only sealable terms of the 21 license agreement are the payment and royalty terms. Thus, the list of patents covered by the 22 agreement does not meet the "compelling reasons" standard. Accordingly, Samsung's motion to 23 file under seal is DENIED with regard to the proposed redactions to the motion for leave to file 24
Samsung also seeks to redact the motion for leave to file HTC license. However, none of
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.