Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01885/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01885-77/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT 

LITIGATION 

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS

Case No. 18-cv-01885-HSG 

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 702, 704, 705, 708, 714, 715, 

719, 721, 728, 730, 732, 743, 794, 795, 798, 

800, 802, 808, 809, 811, 814, 817, 819, 821, 

823, 874, 876, 878, 879, 882, 885, 890, 897, 

902, 904, 906

Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions 

of documents in connection motions for partial summary judgment and Daubert motions filed by 

Philips, HTC, and Microsoft (thirty-six sealing motions in total).

1 The Court GRANTS 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 

1 These do not include the motions to seal filed in connection with ASUS’s motion for summary 

judgment, Philips’s motion for partial summary judgment and Daubert motions as to ASUS, and 

Microsoft and ASUS’s joint Daubert motion to exclude the exert opinion of Michael E. Tate, Dkt. 

Nos. 710, 712, 722, 726, 741, 750, 803, 806, 828, 836, 844, 872, 888, 893, 899.

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 972 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

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-GPCMDD, 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).

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 972 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

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 will apply the 

lower good cause standard for documents related to the Daubert motions. 

The parties have satisfied the standards for sealing because the unredacted information

contains confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of the parties. 

See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. 

Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 

1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 

WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The parties (and non-party Google) filed supporting 

declarations representing that the identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and 

exhibits contain information disclosing confidential licensing negotiations, pricing information, 

detailed source code, and non-public technical descriptions of their products. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 

721-1, 773, 779, 781, 784, 795, 808-1, 847, 853, 856, 916, 917. According to the parties, public 

disclosure of such information would cause severe harm to them, as competitors, potential 

litigants, and licensees could use the information to their disadvantage. See id.

The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of the parties’ 

administrative motions to seal. HTC and Philips executed a settlement agreement, and the 

pending motions for partial summary judgment and Daubert motions as between them have been 

terminated as moot. Dkt. Nos. 955, 957, 958. Similarly, Microsoft and Philips have also entered 

into a settlement agreement and filed a stipulation of dismissal that the Court entered, and have 

been terminated as moot. Dkt. Nos. 963, 965. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s 

understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of 

these documents is minimal given that the Court will not rule on the parties’ motions. See In re 

iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 

25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light 

of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification.”). Accordingly, because the documents divulge proprietary and confidential 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 972 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the 

Court finds that there is compelling reason and good cause to file the documents under seal. See 

Economus v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges 

sensitive information no longer related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe 

v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14,

2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling 

reasons to seal the exhibit).

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/20/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 972 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 4