Opinion
Case No. 18-cv-01885-HSG
04-13-2020
IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 710, 711, 712, 713, 722, 724, 726, 741, 742, 750, 751, 766, 803, 806, 828, 836, 844, 872, 888, 893, 899
Pending before the Court are the parties' administrative motions to file under seal portions of documents in connection with motions for partial summary judgment and Daubert motions filed by Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, "Philips") and Defendants ASUS Computer International and ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (collectively, "ASUS"). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions to file under seal.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a "compelling reasons" standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). "This standard derives from the common law right 'to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). "[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 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" and "significant public events." Id. at 1178-79 (quotations omitted). "In general, 'compelling reasons' sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such 'court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). "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.
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the "compelling reasons" standard. The party seeking to file under seal must submit "a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . ." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Courts have found that "confidential business information" in the form of "license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies" satisfies the "compelling reasons" standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information "prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties' business model and strategy"); Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015).
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action." Id. at 1179-80 (quotations omitted). This requires a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. The Court applies the lower good cause standard for documents related to the Daubert motions.
The parties' motions demonstrate the burden imposed by overdesignation of confidentiality under a protective order. In many cases, the party seeking to seal does so only because another party or a third party designated entire documents as confidential. E.g., Dkt. No. 827-4. The party imposing the designation then files a declaration seeking to seal only a small portion of the document. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 857. Because a designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a document is sealable, the Court finds sealing unwarranted for the overdesignated portions of the documents unsupported by any declaration. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A); Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011) (finding that good cause "cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential"); see also Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1).
Nevertheless, where the designating party provided a declaration, the Court finds that the parties generally narrowly tailored their requested redactions to confidential and proprietary technical, business, sales, or licensing information. In dispositive motions, the parties have narrowly tailored their redactions to specific source code, which "clearly meets the definition a trade secret." See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012). Elsewhere, the parties seek to seal information related to the technical product operation, the existence and terms of confidential licenses and settlement agreements, and information related to business operations. The public release of these documents could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage in developing rival products. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents could be used "'as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing'") (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). Thus, the Court finds that the parties have in these circumstances established compelling reasons or good cause to grant the motions to file under seal. See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016); Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. C 12-1971 CW, 2014 WL 6986068 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014).
Two exceptions exist and are worth noting. First, the parties seek to seal extensive portions of Philips's opposition to ASUS's summary judgment motion and its supporting exhibits. Dkt. No. 836. The Court directly relies on some of the currently-redacted portions and is strongly inclined to make those portions public. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 ("[T]he 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 significant public events.'" (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co.v . U.S. Dist. Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). Although information about technical product operation typically qualifies for protection, much of the information here is already public. In seeking summary judgment, ASUS—correctly and laudably—describes in general terms the operation of the accused products. See Dkt. No. 724 at 4:3-18; Dkt. No.895 at 2:25-3:10, 4:16-18. Portions of the materials the parties seek to redact merely describe the same functionality with little, if any, added detail. Those portions are not trade secrets and the parties fail to articulate compelling reasons to keep them sealed. See RESTATEMENT (FIRST) OF TORTS § 757 cmt. b (Am. Law. Inst. 1939) ("The subject matter of a trade secret must be secret."); cf. Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Grp., Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011) ("While source code is undoubtedly a trade secret, the way the source code works when compiled and run is not.").
For this reason, the Court also rejects sealing of information related to functionality that is clearly visible to the user—such as the type of animation shown. See Agency Solutions.Com, 819 F. Supp. 2d at 1017 (denying protection for functions "evident in the operation of the software").
Second, the parties seek to seal portions of briefing related to ASUS's and Microsoft's motion to exclude opinions of Michael E. Tate (damages). Dkt. No. 741. In seeking to seal, the parties go beyond confidential licensing and business information to try to seal the very nature and form of Mr. Tate's analysis. The redactions go the heart of Defendants' motions as they seek to exclude from public view information about the analysis (or lack thereof) that Defendants claim make Dr. Tate's opinions unreliable. The parties do not cite—and the Court cannot imagine—any case finding good cause to seal such purely litigation related information. Moreover, although the underlying motion is not dispositive, Philips presumably intends to rely on Mr. Tate's testimony to prove its damages at trial. Thus, although the lower "good cause" standard applies, the Court finds that the parties failed to meet that standard to the extent they seek to seal the form of Mr. Tate's case-specific analysis that does not implicate otherwise confidential information.
| Docket No.Public / (Sealed) | Document | Portion(s) Sought to beSealed | Ruling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dkt. No. 710 - GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART | |||
| 711 / (710-4) | Philips' Motion toExclude UntimelyTheories in Dr.Dunlop's RebuttalExpert ReportServed on Behalf ofASUS ConcerningU.S. Patent NO.RE44,913 | Page i:10Page 4:17-21Page 5:2, 15-20, 24-27Page 6:12-18, 23, 25-28Page 7:1Page 9:24-25Page 10:1-4, 12, 15-17Page 11:25-27Page 12:1-2, 5-9, 13, 15-20Page 13:21-22Page 15:24-26Page 16:1-2, 4-8, | DENIED(cites portions ofexhibits not properlysubject to sealing.See infra discussionre: exhibits.) |
| 711-3 / (710-6) | Exhibit 2 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sMotion to ExcludeUntimely Theoriesin Dr. Dunlop'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.RE44,913 | Pages 6-25Page 26:1-13 | GRANTED(containsconfidential sourcecode information.See Dkt. Nos. 775,781) |
| 711-5 / (710-8) | Exhibit 4 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N. | Page 5:9-28Pages 6-8Page 9:1-20 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed. |
| Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sMotion to ExcludeUntimely Theoriesin Dr. Dunlop'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.RE44,913 | See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 711-6 / (710-10) | Exhibit 5 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sMotion to ExcludeUntimely Theoriesin Dr. Dunlop'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.RE44,913 | Page 41 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 711-7 / (710-11) | Exhibit 6 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sMotion to ExcludeUntimely Theoriesin Dr. Dunlop'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.RE44,913 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential sourcecode information asindicated in Dkt.Nos. 775 and 782-1.See Dkt. Nos. 775,781) |
| 711-8 / (710-13,782-2) | Exhibit 7 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sMotion to ExcludeUntimely Theoriesin Dr. Dunlop'sRebuttal Expert | Portions of Pages 3, 4, 5 | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialinformationregarding operationof third-partyGoogle's products |
| Report Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.RE44,913 | and source code asindicated in Dkt. No.782-2. See Dkt. No.781) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 711-9 / (710-15,782-3) | Exhibit 8 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sMotion to ExcludeUntimely Theoriesin Dr. Dunlop'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.RE44,913 | Portions of Pages 3 and 4 | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialinformationregarding operationof third-partyGoogle's products asindicated in Dkt. No.782-3. See Dkt. No.781) |
| 711-10 / (710-17) | Exhibit 9 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sMotion to ExcludeUntimely Theoriesin Dr. Dunlop'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.RE44,913 | Pages 265-68 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed. SeeCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 711-11 / (710-18) | Exhibit 10 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sMotion to ExcludeUntimely Theoriesin Dr. Dunlop'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.RE44,913 | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed. SeeCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| Dkt. No. 712 - GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART |
| 713 / (712-4) | Philips' Motion toExclude CertainOpinions in Dr.Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | Page i:12-15Page 8:17-21Page 9:1-2Page 14:19-26Page 15:1-9, 14-16, 18-21Page 16:7-17, 19, 21, 24-25Page 17:1-2, 4-7, 17-18Page 18:1-11, 14, 18, 20-21, 22, 24-26Page 19:1-2, 6-8 | DENIED(cites portions ofexhibits not properlysubject to sealing.See infra discussionre: exhibits.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 713-3 / (712-6) | Exhibit 2 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | Paragraphs 138-40 at page44Portion of paragraph 171 atPage 53Portion of paragraph 366 atPage 127 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed. SeeCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 713-4 / (712-7) | Exhibit 3 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed. SeeCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 713-6 / (712-9) | Exhibit 5 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions in | Page i:8-15Page 2:1-8Page 3:12-25Page 4:1-2, 14-15, 20-28Page 5:1-13, 16-17Page 6:1-6, 8-10, 24-28Page 7:1-22 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed. SeeCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| Dr. Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | Page 8:1-17, 23-24Page 9:16-28Page 10:1-18Page 11:1-8 | ||
| 713-8 / (712-11) | Exhibit 7 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | Pages 6, 159-171Page 172:1-12 | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential sourcecode on page 6. SeeDkt. No. 776.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 713-9 / (712-13) | Exhibit 8 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | Pages 6, 159-171, 172:1-3 | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(contains sourcecode information onPage 6. See Dkt.No. 776.) |
| 713-11 / (712-15) | Exhibit 10 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal Expert | Pages 5:10-9:20 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| Reports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | |||
| 713-12 / (712-17) | Exhibit 11 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | Appendix I at 5, 6Appendix R at 3 | GRANTED(containsinformationregardingconfidential supplieragreements anddeposition testimonyregarding productoperation andtesting. See Dkt.Nos. 776, 781.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 713-13 / (712-19) | Exhibit 12 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | Portions of pages 3, 4, and5 | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialinformation aboutoperation of third-party Google'sproducts as indicatedin Dkt. No. 782-2.See Dkt No. 781.) |
| 713-14 / (712-21) | Exhibit 13 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S. | Portions of pages 3, 4 | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialinformation aboutoperation of third-party Google'sproducts as indicatedin Dkt. No. 782-3.See Dkt No. 781.) |
| Patent No.9,436,809 | |||
| Dkt. No. 722 - GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 724 / (722-9) | ASUS's Notice ofMotion and Motionfor SummaryJudgment | Page 8:9-17 | GRANTED(containsconfidential sourcecode information.See Dkt. Nos. 711-1,781, 782-10.) |
| 724-6 / (722-3) | Exhibit 5 toDeclaration ofAngela M. He inSupport of ASUS'sMotion forSummary Judgment | Paragraphs 34-44Paragraph 99Paragraphs 177-80 | GRANTED(containsconfidential sourcecode. See Dkt. Nos.711-1, 781, 782-11.) |
| 724-9 / (722-5) | Exhibit 8 toDeclaration ofAngela M. He inSupport of ASUS'sMotion forSummary Judgment | Paragraphs 125-38Paragraphs 140-43Paragraphs 157-61Paragraphs 162-64Paragraphs 175-77Paragraphs 178-81Paragraphs 201-03Paragraphs 210-11Paragraphs 238-41Paragraphs 266-70Paragraph 302Paragraphs 315-18Paragraph 353Paragraph 365Paragraph 368Paragraphs 453-58Paragraph 486-87Paragraph 491Paragraphs 525-27Paragraphs 534-37Paragraphs 575-77 | GRANTED(containsconfidential sourcecode information, aswell as confidentiallicensinginformation. SeeDkt. Nos. 711-1,781, 782-12.) |
| 724-21 / (722-7) | Exhibit 20 toDeclaration ofAngela M. He inSupport of ASUS'sMotion forSummary Judgment | Page 163:25-164:13 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| Dkt. No. 726 - GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART | |||
| 766 / (726-4) | Philips' Motion toExclude CertainOpinions in Dr.Bulterman'sRebuttal Expert | Page 2:15-22Page 3:1, 5-22Page 4:1-3, 18, 26-27Page 6:9Page 7:4, 7-8, 26 | GRANTED(contains proprietaryinformation of third-party Google'sproducts. See Dkt. |
| Report Served OnBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | Page 8:6-18, 23, 27Page 9:6-7, 16-17Page 12:12-17, 20-21, 24-27Page 24:24-25:11 | Nos. 781, 782-13.) | |
| 766-2 / (726-5) | Exhibit 1 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn Bingaman InSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served OnBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(contains proprietaryinformation aboutthird party Google'sproducts and sourcecode, as indicated inDkt. No. 782-14.See Dkt. No. 781.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 766-3 / (726-6) | Exhibit 2 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn Bingaman InSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served OnBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential sourcecode and proprietaryinformation aboutthird party Google'sproducts at pages107 through 158.See Dkt. Nos. 777,781.) |
| 766-6 / (726-7) | Exhibit 5 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn Bingaman InSupport of Philips'Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions inDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served OnBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(contains proprietaryinformation aboutthird party Google'sproducts andbusiness operationsas indicated in Dkt.No. 782-15. SeeDkt. No. 781.) |
| 766-9 / (726-9) | Exhibit 8 toDeclaration ofCaitlyn Bingaman In | Portions of Pages 3-5 | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART |
| Page 21:1-28Page 22:1-2, 10-20, 23-28Page 23:1-6, 11-28Page 24:1-6, 16-18Page 25:1-2 | 14, 19-24;• Page 11:5-6,8-12, 21-22;• Page 14:5-9,16-20;• Page 14:27-15:1;• Page 15:22-23;• Page 18:8-15;• Page 19:1;• Page 21:1-3,8, 10-12, 17-25;• Page 22:24-27;• Page 23:17-19;See Dkt. Nos. 741-1,785.) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 742-2 / (741-7) | Exhibit 1 toDeclaration ofTiffany CunninghamIn Support ofMicrosoft andASUS's DaubertMotion to ExcludeExpert Opinions ofMichael E. Tate | Entire document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsDefendants' (1)confidential salesdata and figuresderived from salesdata (2) informationabout confidentiallicensingagreements, and (3)business informationrelated to internaloperations, asindicated in Dkt. No.741-7. See Dkt. No.741-1. Furthercontains Philips'sconfidentiallicensing and salesinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.785-2. See Dkt. No.785.) |
| 742-3 / (741-9) | Exhibit 2 to | Entire Document | GRANTED IN |
| Declaration ofTiffany CunninghamIn Support ofMicrosoft andASUS's DaubertMotion to ExcludeExpert Opinions ofMichael E. Tate | PART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsDefendants'confidential salesand licensinginformation asindicated in Dkt. No.741-9. See Dkt. No.741-2. Furthercontains Philips'sconfidentiallicensing and salesinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.785-3. See Dkt. No.785.) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 742-4 / (741-11) | Exhibit 3 toDeclaration ofTiffany CunninghamIn Support ofMicrosoft andASUS's DaubertMotion to ExcludeExpert Opinions ofMichael E. Tate | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(contains Philips'sconfidentiallicensinginformation asindicated in Dkt. No.785-4. See Dkt. No.785.) |
| 742-5 / (741-13) | Exhibit 4 toDeclaration ofTiffany CunninghamIn Support ofMicrosoft andASUS's DaubertMotion to ExcludeExpert Opinions ofMichael E. Tate | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(contains Philips'sconfidentiallicensinginformation asindicated in Dkt. No.785-5. See Dkt. No.785.) |
| 742-6 / (741-15) | Exhibit 5 toDeclaration ofTiffany CunninghamIn Support ofMicrosoft andASUS's DaubertMotion to ExcludeExpert Opinions ofMichael E. Tate | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(contains Philips'sconfidentiallicensinginformation asindicated in Dkt. No.785-6. See Dkt. No.785.) |
| 742-7 / (741-17) | Exhibit 6 to | Entire Document | GRANTED IN |
| 751 / (750-4) | Philips' Motion forPartial SummaryJudgment OnCertain AffirmativeDefenses Raised bythe ASUSDefendants | Page 17:22-24, 27-28Page 18-6-9, 22-24, 27-28Page 20:3-14, 14, 16-19,24-27Page 21:1-2 | DENIED(cites informationfor whichcompelling reasonsto seal have not beenestablished. Seeinfra discussion re:exhibits.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 753-9 / (750-6) | Exhibit 19 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman InSupport of Philips'Motion for PartialSummary JudgmentOn CertainAffirmativeDefenses Raised bythe ASUSDefendants | Page 39:8-41:11Page 55:7-58:24Page 61:21-26Page 62:19-25Page 63:1-8Page 65:5-12Page 66:14-27Page 71:18-20Page 72:21-25Pag 73:2-3Page 73:15-28Page 74:1-14 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 769-7 / (750-7) | Exhibit 37 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman InSupport of Philips'Motion for PartialSummary JudgmentOn CertainAffirmativeDefenses Raised bythe ASUSDefendants | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 769-9 / (750-8) | Exhibit 39 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman InSupport of Philips'Motion for PartialSummary JudgmentOn CertainAffirmativeDefenses Raised bythe ASUSDefendants | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 769-10 / (750-9) | Exhibit 40 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman In | Entire Document | GRANTED(containsinformation aboutconfidential license |
| Support of Philips'Motion for PartialSummary JudgmentOn CertainAffirmativeDefenses Raised bythe ASUSDefendants | agreement andterms. See Dkt. No.778.) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dkt. No. 803 - DENIED | |||
| 805 / (803-3) | ASUS's Oppositionto Philips' Motion toExclude CertainOpinions in Dr.Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | Page 4:20-5:21 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 805-2 / (803-7) | Exhibit 1 to theDeclaration ofMichael J. NewtonIn Support ofASUS's Oppositionto Philips' Motion toExclude CertainOpinions in Dr.Jakobsson'sOpening andRebuttal ExpertReports Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.9,436,809 | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| Dkt. No. 806 - GRANTED | |||
| 807 / (806-4) | Philips's Oppositionto Microsoft andASUS's DaubertMotion to ExcludeExpert Opinions ofMichael E. Tate | Page 3:6-11Page 4:2, 14-18Page 5:5-14Page 7:23-24, 26-27Page 12:3-25Page 16:8-9, 13-21Page 21:21Page 23:2-3Pages 24:15-26:11 | GRANTED(containsconfidentiallicensinginformation. SeeDkt. Nos. 856, 806-1, and supradiscussion re: Dkt.No. 742.) |
| 807-4 / (806-5) | Exhibit C to the | Entire Document | GRANTED |
| Declaration ofNatalie Lieber inSupport of Philips'sOpposition toMicrosoft andASUS's DaubertMotion to ExcludeExpert Opinions ofMichael E. Tate | (containsconfidentialfinancialinformation. SeeDkt. No. 806-1.) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 807-8 / (806-6) | Exhibit G to theDeclaration ofNatalie Lieber inSupport of Philips'sOpposition toMicrosoft andASUS's DaubertMotion to ExcludeExpert Opinions ofMichael E. Tate | Entire Document | GRANTED(containsconfidential royaltyand salesinformation. SeeDkt. No. 856.) |
| 807-9 / (806-7) | Exhibit H to theDeclaration ofNatalie Lieber inSupport of Philips'sOpposition toMicrosoft andASUS's DaubertMotion to ExcludeExpert Opinions ofMichael E. Tate | Entire Document | GRANTED(containsconfidentiallicensinginformation. SeeDkt. No. 856.) |
| Dkt. No. 828 - DENIED | |||
| 830 / (828-2) | ASUS's Oppositionto Philips' Motionfor Partial SummaryJudgment on CertainAffirmativeDefenses | Page 9:21-22Page 10:1-9Page 11:3-4Page 11:6-10Page 12:2-4 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 830-2 / (828-4) | Exhibit 1 toDeclaration of ErikaH. Warren inSupport of ASUSOpposition toPhilips' Motion forPartial SummaryJudgment OnCertain AffirmativeDefenses | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 830-5 / (828-5) | Exhibit 4 toDeclaration of Erika | Entire Document | DENIED(No supporting |
| Opposition toASUS's Motion forSummary Judgment | Pages 36:12-40:2Page 40:8-9Pages 40:12-44:2Pages 47:13-59:2Pages 61:6-79:17Page 79:20-24Page 109:1-7Page 111:22-112:3Page 112:19-23Page 127:4, 21Page 128:12, 25Page 129:11, 26Page 142:2-21Page 143:24-144:24Pages 170:4-171:20Page 195:10-11, 14-16 | code and technicaloperationinformation. SeeDkt. Nos. 853, 857.) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 827-16 / (836-13) | Exhibit 15 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Opposition toASUS's Motion forSummary Judgment | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialinformationregarding internalIDs andidentifications ofcomponents asindicated in Dkt. No.857.) |
| 827-17 / (836-14) | Exhibit 16 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Opposition toASUS's Motion forSummary Judgment | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialinformationregarding internalIDs andidentifications ofcomponents asindicated in Dkt. No.857.) |
| 827-18 / (836-16) | Exhibit 17 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Opposition toASUS's Motion forSummary Judgment | Page 96:15-18Page 97:13-16Page 99:2-6Page 106:15-16Page 107:7-10Page 113:20-22Page 114:3-5, 10-12 | GRANTED(containsconfidential sourcecode information.See Dkt. No. 853.) |
| 827-20 / (836-17) | Exhibit 19 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Opposition toASUS's Motion forSummary Judgment | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialinformationregarding internalIDs andidentifications ofcomponents asindicated in Dkt. No.857.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 827-29 / (836-18) | Exhibit 28 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Opposition toASUS's Motion forSummary Judgment | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 827-30 / (836-20) | Exhibit 29 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Opposition toASUS's Motion forSummary Judgment | Page 165:5-13, 19-21Page 166:12-28Page 167:1-2, 5-9Page 168:1-20, 23-28Page 169:4-6, 11-12Page 170:1-24Pages 171:2-173:20Pages 173:24-175:20 | GRANTED(containsconfidential businessand technicalinformation. SeeDkt. No. 857.) |
| 827-31 / (836-21) | Exhibit 30 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Opposition toASUS's Motion forSummary Judgment | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialinformationregarding internalIDs andidentifications ofcomponents, to theextent stated in Dkt.No. 857.) |
| 831-2 / (836-22) | Exhibit 33 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Opposition toASUS's Motion for | Entire Document | GRANTED(containsconfidential licenseinformation. SeeDkt. No. 857.) |
| Summary Judgment | |||
| 831-4 / (836-23) | Exhibit 35 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Opposition toASUS's Motion forSummary Judgment | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 831-7 / (836-24) | Exhibit 38 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'Opposition toASUS's Motion forSummary Judgment | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| Dkt. No. 844 - GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART | |||
| 832 / (844-3) | ASUS' Oppositionto Philips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | References to certainfunctionality throughoutPage 3:4Page 4:1-4Page 5:21-25Page 26:1-4, 10-13Page 11:8-12, 19-22Page 11:6-7Page 12:17-18 | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialtechnicalinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.854-15. See Dkt.No. 853.) |
| 832-3 / (844-4) | Exhibit 2 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 832-7 / (844-5) | Exhibit 6 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman's | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialtechnicalinformation asindicated in Dkt. No. |
| Rebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | 853-4. See Dkt. No.853.) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 832-8 / (844-6) | Exhibit 7 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialtechnicalinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.853-5. See Dkt. No.853.) |
| 832-9 / (844-7) | Exhibit 8 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialtechnicalinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.853-6. See Dkt. No.853.) |
| 832-10 / (844-8) | Exhibit 9 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialtechnicalinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.853-7. See Dkt. No.853.) |
| 832-11 / (844-9) | Exhibit 10 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman's | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialtechnicalinformation asindicated in Dkt. No. |
| Rebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | 853-8. See Dkt. No.853.) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 832-14 / (844-10) | Exhibit 13 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialtechnicalinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.853-9. See Dkt. No.853.) |
| 832-17 / (844-11) | Exhibit 16 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialtechnicalinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.853-13. See Dkt.No. 853.) |
| 832-18 / (844-12) | Exhibit 17 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED(containsconfidentialtechnicalinformation. SeeDkt. No. 853.) |
| 832-19 / (844-13) | Exhibit 18 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman's | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential sourcecode information asindicated in Dkt. No.951-1. See Dkt. No. |
| Rebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | 950.) | ||
| 832-20 / (844-14) | Exhibit 19 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warrant inSupport of ASUS'Opposition toPhilips' Motion toExclude Portions ofDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport ConcerningU.S. Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidentialtechnicalinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.853-10. See Dkt.No. 853.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dkt. No. 872 - DENIED | |||
| 873-2 / (872-3) | Exhibit 11 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply in Support ofPhilips's Motion toExclude UntimelyTheories of Dr.Dunlop | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| Dkt. No. 888 - DENIED | |||
| Microsoft andASUS's Reply inSupport of DaubertMotion to ExcludeExpert Opinions ofMichael E. Tate(Damages) | Page 3:28Page 4:1-2 | DENIED(ASUS seeks to sealportions of its Replydesignated byPhilips asconfidential underthe protective order.See Dkt. No. 888-1.Philips provides adeclaration seekingto seal entirelydifferent portions ofthe Reply. See Dkt.No. 914. Most ofPhilips's redactionsare directed toalleged flaws in Mr.Tate's analysis—theheart of Defendants'motion and the basis |
| on which Philipspresumably seeksdamages in thislitigation. Becausesuch reductions areimproper and—inany case—alreadypublicly disclosed atDkt. No. 889,Philips's request isdenied.) | |||
| Dkt. No. 893 - GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 895-1 / (893-2) | Exhibit 1 to theDeclaration of ErikaH. Warren inSupport of ASUS'Reply Memorandumin Support of ItsMotion forSummary Judgment | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential sourcecode information asindicated in Dkt. No.971-1. See Dkt. No.917.) |
| Dkt. No. 899 - GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART | |||
| 900 / (899-4) | Philips's Reply InSupport of Motionto Exclude CertainOpinions In Dr.Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | References to particular"theories" ofnoninfringement, theidentity of a witness, andsource code throughout. | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential sourcecode and technicalproduct informationas indicated in Dkt.No. 971-2. See Dkt.No. 917.) |
| 900-3 / (899-6) | Exhibit 12 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 900-4 / (899-8) | Exhibit 13 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | References to certaintechnical products andsource code throughout | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential productinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.853-5. See Dkt. No.917.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 900-5 / (899-10) | Exhibit 14 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | References to certaintechnical products andsource code throughout | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential productinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.559-41. See Dkt.No. 917.) |
| 900-6 / (899-12) | Exhibit 15 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | References to certaintechnical products andsource code throughout | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential productinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.917-3. See Dkt. No.917.) |
| 900-7 / (899-14) | Exhibit 16 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N. | References to certaintechnical products andsource code throughout | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART |
| Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | (containsconfidential productinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.917-4. See Dkt. No.917.) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 900-8 / (899-16) | Exhibit 17 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | References to certaintechnical products andsource code throughout | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential productinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.853-8. See Dkt. No.917.) |
| 900-10 / (899-18) | Exhibit 19 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | References to certainpersons throughout | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| 900-11 / (899-20) | Exhibit 20 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support of | Pages 111-12 | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
| Motion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | |||
| 900-12 / (899-22) | Exhibit 21 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | References to certainpersons throughout | DENIED(No supportingdeclaration filed.See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 900-13 / (899-24) | Exhibit 22 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | References to certainpersonsPages 109-10 | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential productinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.853-9. See Dkt. No.917.) |
| 900-14 / (899-26) | Exhibit 23 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman's | References to certainproducts, persons, andsource code throughout | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential productinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.918-3. See Dkt. No.917.) |
| Rebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | |||
| 900-15 / (899-28) | Exhibit 24 to theDeclaration ofCaitlyn N.Bingaman inSupport of Philips'sReply In Support ofMotion to ExcludeCertain Opinions InDr. Bulterman'sRebuttal ExpertReport Served onBehalf of ASUSConcerning U.S.Patent No.7,529,806 | Entire Document | GRANTED INPART ANDDENIED IN PART(containsconfidential productinformation asindicated in Dkt. No.918-4. See Dkt. No.917.) |
|---|
Philips seeks to seal additional information at 1:27-2:5, 8:28-9:1, 10, 13:10-13, 13: 23-26, 14:1-4, 14:9-12, 14:23-26, 15:23-16:3, 16:21-22, 18:22-19:4, 19:10-16, 20:21-22, 21:26-22:2, 23:4-5, and 24:1-2. These pages describe the very nature of Mr. Tate's damages analysis that Defendants challenge as unreliable. Philips failed to articulate good cause to seal information about how Mr. Tate conducted his analysis. Philips also improperly seeks to seal publicly available information at 9:4-16 and 14:20-22. See https://www.ip.philips.com/data/downloadables/1/9/7/3/explanation-registration-agreements-2015-05-29.pdf.
See also https://www.ip.philips.com/data/downloadables/1/9/7/6/portable-features-patent-list-per-country-20150529.pdf (showing the same document at a different date).
The Court rejects parties' request to seal information at 1:16-2:1, 2:27-3:5, 3:21-23, 4:22-28, 5:10-11, 6:18-7:4, 7 n.2 on the grounds that the information is already disclosed in public filings. See Dkt. No. 724 at 4:3-18, 5:12-14; Dkt. No.895 at 2:25-3:10, 4:16-18; Dkt. No. 827-2. Several of these pages quote ASUS's publicly filed motion, which underscores that the parties have not narrowly tailored their requests. See Dkt. No. 836-4 at 1:16-24, 2:14, 3:2-5, 6:18-20. ASUS and Google fail to articulate compelling reasons to justify sealing in these circumstances.
These passages are directly relevant to the Court's analysis and contain technical information too general to be considered a trade secret. See Apple, 2012 WL 6115623, at *2. Most of the information is also already disclosed in public filings or else from the operation of the products themselves. See Agency Solutions.Com, 819 F. Supp. 2d at 1017. ASUS fails to articulate competitive harm from disclosure of information in these circumstances.
ASUS and Google seek to seal additional information in this exhibit, claiming it discloses confidential technical information. Dkt. Nos. 853, 857. However, that information is already disclosed in public filings. See Dkt. No. 724 at 4:3-18; Dkt. No. 895 at 3:4-10, 4:16-18. --------
III. CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties' administrative motions to file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied, as indicated in the chart above, within seven days from the date of this order. Alternatively, the parties may file a new motion to seal within seven days of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 13, 2020
/s/_________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge