Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Apple, Inc., A California Corporation, Plaintiff v. Samsung

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


January 1, 2013

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.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

On November 9, 2012, Apple filed a motion to seal pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5. ECF No. 2127. This motion sought to seal: (1) portions of Apple's reply brief in support of Apple's motion 20 for a permanent injunction; (2) portions of the declaration of Karan Singh in support thereof; (3) 21 Exhibits 9, 12, 17, and 23 to the Declaration of Richard Hung; and (4) Exhibit 2 to the Reply 22 Declaration of Marylee Robinson. On December 10, 2012, this Court granted the motion as to 23 Exhibit 23, parts of the Singh Declaration, Exhibit 17, and parts of Apple's reply brief. ECF No. 24 2190. The Court denied the motion as to other parts of the Singh Declaration, Exhibits 9 and 12 to 25 the Hung Declaration, other parts of Apple's reply brief, and Exhibit 2 to the Robinson 26 Declaration. Id. 27

Samsung has now filed a motion to stay the Court's order insofar as it requires the public 28 filing of Exhibit 2 to the Robinson Declaration. Exhibit 2 lists the total number of units of certain Samsung products sold during certain time periods, information which this Court concluded in its 2

December 10, 2012 Order does not meet the "compelling reasons" standard. Samsung asserts that 3 because Samsung has appealed one of this Court's prior sealing Orders, ECF No. 1649, the Court 4 should stay any Order requiring release of the same type of information until the Federal Circuit 5 rules on the appeal. The Court has previously agreed to stay orders that would unseal the type of 6 information that is the subject of a pending appeal. See, e.g., ECF No. 2168. 7

The information in Exhibit 2, however, is not the same type of information that is the 8 subject of Samsung's appeal to the Federal Circuit. Samsung's appeal involves pricing information 9 and profit margins. See Brief for Defendants-Cross-Appellants, Fed. Cir. Case No. 12-1600, at 8-10 10 (table summarizing documents that are the subject of the appeal), 18 ("The documents at issue here. . . synthesize Samsung's confidential and proprietary per-product revenue, pricing, and cost information."). In contrast, Exhibit 2 contains no information about pricing or profits; it only lists 13 the number of units sold in each of several recent months. Samsung has not asked the Federal 14

Circuit to rule on whether sales figures that do not reveal anything about revenue and pricing can 15 be sealed, and this Court has concluded that such data may not be sealed. Accordingly, the Federal 16

Circuit's ruling on the issue of the sealability of pricing and profit information will not bear on this 17

Court's analysis of the sealability of the number of units sold. Accordingly, Samsung's motion to 18 stay is DENIED. 19

IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

20130101

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.