Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846-316/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

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.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK

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 

for a permanent injunction; (2) portions of the declaration of Karan Singh in support thereof; (3) 

Exhibits 9, 12, 17, and 23 to the Declaration of Richard Hung; and (4) Exhibit 2 to the Reply 

Declaration of Marylee Robinson. On December 10, 2012, this Court granted the motion as to 

Exhibit 23, parts of the Singh Declaration, Exhibit 17, and parts of Apple’s reply brief. ECF No. 

2190. The Court denied the motion as to other parts of the Singh Declaration, Exhibits 9 and 12 to 

the Hung Declaration, other parts of Apple’s reply brief, and Exhibit 2 to the Robinson 

Declaration. Id.

Samsung has now filed a motion to stay the Court’s order insofar as it requires the public 

filing of Exhibit 2 to the Robinson Declaration. Exhibit 2 lists the total number of units of certain 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 2211 Filed 01/01/13 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

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

For the Northern District of California

Samsung products sold during certain time periods, information which this Court concluded in its 

December 10, 2012 Order does not meet the “compelling reasons” standard. Samsung asserts that 

because Samsung has appealed one of this Court’s prior sealing Orders, ECF No. 1649, the Court

should stay any Order requiring release of the same type of information until the Federal Circuit 

rules on the appeal. The Court has previously agreed to stay orders that would unseal the type of 

information that is the subject of a pending appeal. See, e.g., ECF No. 2168.

The information in Exhibit 2, however, is not the same type of information that is the 

subject of Samsung’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. Samsung’s appeal involves pricing information 

and profit margins. See Brief for Defendants-Cross-Appellants, Fed. Cir. Case No. 12-1600, at 8-

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 

the number of units sold in each of several recent months. Samsung has not asked the Federal 

Circuit to rule on whether sales figures that do not reveal anything about revenue and pricing can 

be sealed, and this Court has concluded that such data may not be sealed. Accordingly, the Federal 

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

Court’s analysis of the sealability of the number of units sold. Accordingly, Samsung’s motion to 

stay is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 1, 2013 _________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 2211 Filed 01/01/13 Page 2 of 2