Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01879/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01879-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOWRIDER SURF, LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PACIFIC SURF DESIGNS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS 

UNDER SEAL

[ECF No. 124]

Defendant Pacific Surf Design, Inc. (“PSD”) has moved to file under seal Exhibits 

Q, R, and S to the Supplemental Declaration of Justin M. Barnes in support of 

Defendant’s Reply Brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter 

Jurisdiction. (Docket No. 124.) 

The exhibits are license agreements and a spreadsheet listing royalty revenues. 

PSD explains that either Plaintiffs or third party Aquatic Development Group, Inc. 

(“ADG”) have designated these exhibits “CONFIDENTIAL-FOR COUNSEL ONLY” 

under the Protective Order because they contain “information regarding the royalties and 

other financial terms for the sale of products, as well as confidential information 

regarding the specifications for the products.” (See id.) 

Case 3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM Document 130 Filed 12/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“[C]ompelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and 

justify sealing court records exist when such court files might . . . become a vehicle for 

improper purposes, such as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets.” Kamakana v. 

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 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.” Restatement of Torts § 757 cmt. b. Royalty 

rates fall within the definition of trade secrets, In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x 568, 569 

(9th Cir. 2008), “because disclosure could create an asymmetry of information in the 

negotiation of future licensing deals,” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv01846-LHK, 2012 WL 4933287, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012). And, clearly, product 

specifications qualify as trade secrets.

Accordingly, PSD’s motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the 

documents lodged at Docket No. 125 under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01879-BEN-BLM Document 130 Filed 12/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2