Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03582/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03582-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 16-03582 WHA

ORDER ON

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

TO FILE UNDER SEAL

A prior order required plaintiff Straight Path IP Group, Inc., and its counsel to show

cause why they should not be held liable for defendant Apple Inc.’s attorney’s fees (Dkt. No.

169 at 22). After Straight Path submitted its response to that order, Apple filed a response to

Straight Path’s brief setting forth further arguments for why Straight Path should be ordered to

pay Apple’s fees and costs (Dkt. No. 165). In connection with its response, Apple also filed an

administrative motion to file under seal portions of Exhibits 10, 11, 13, and 16 to the declaration

of Clayton James, as well as portions of its response citing information from those exhibits,

pursuant to Straight Path’s confidentiality designations (Dkt. No. 164). Straight Path then filed

a separate administrative motion to keep under seal only more limited portions of Exhibits 10,

13, and 16 that revealed Straight Path’s specific settlement and license payment terms and

royalty rate terms with third parties. According to Straight Path, this information remains

subject to confidentiality agreements with third parties and public disclosure of this information

“could substantially interfere with and very likely harm” Straight Path’s or the third parties’

“ongoing and future licensing negotiations” (see Dkt. No. 167-1 ¶¶ 2–4).

Case 3:16-cv-03582-WHA Document 178 Filed 01/04/18 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Since the underlying issue — whether Straight Path should be ordered to pay Apple’s

fees and costs — is no more than tangentially related to the merits of this action, only good

cause is required to warrant sealing. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d

1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). This order finds Straight Path has shown good cause only for the

limited portions of Exhibits 10, 13, and 16 that reveal specific, confidential settlement and

license payment terms and royalty rate terms with third parties. The administrative motions to

file under seal (Dkt. Nos. 164, 167) are therefore GRANTED only to that extent. Apple shall file

unredacted or revised redacted versions of the documents encompassed by its administrative

motion to fully comply with this order by JANUARY 11 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2018. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-03582-WHA Document 178 Filed 01/04/18 Page 2 of 2