Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01797/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01797-6/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

PCT International Incorporated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Holland Electronics LLC, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-01797-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff PCT International Inc. (“PCT”)’s Renewed 

Motion to File Under Seal Certain Documents (Doc. 216) and Defendant Holland 

Electronics, LLC (“Holland”)’s Revised Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 214). The 

Court now rules on the motions. 

I. Background

 Both parties in this case filed a number of motions to file under seal dispositive 

motions (including responses and replies) and various documents attached to dispositive 

motions. The Court denied without prejudice the motions to file under seal, finding that 

the parties had not met the standard for sealing documents attached to a dispositive 

motion under Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case law. (Doc. 213). The Court ordered the 

parties to each file a single motion to file under seal addressing all documents sought to 

be sealed and for each document, specifying with particularity the compelling reasons 

why that document should be sealed. (Id. at 8). 

 Each party has filed a motion to file under seal as well as a response to the other 

party’s motion. (Docs. 214, 216, 217, 218). The Court now rules on the motions. 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 17
- 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 

II. Legal Standard

 It has long been recognized that the public has a general right of access “to inspect 

and copy . . . judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right extends to all judicial records except those that have 

“traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons,” namely grand jury 

transcripts and certain warrant materials. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally 

kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (citing 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[T]he 

strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, 

including motions for summary judgment and related attachments,” because “the 

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 of 

significant public events.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley Broadcasting 

Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

“A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this 

strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. at 1178 (citing 

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). The party 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.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A court 

deciding to seal judicial records must “base its decision on a compelling reason and 

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.

at 1179 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

The presumption of public access is not rebutted merely because “documents 

subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive motion.” 

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. A party seeking to seal a judicial record must still meet its heavy 

burden of demonstrating compelling reasons exist for sealing. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 2 of 17
- 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 

1179. 

 “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.

(quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “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. 

 Accordingly, a party’s allegations that material is “confidential” or “business 

information” are insufficient to justify sealing court records containing such material 

unless the party proves the existence of compelling reasons for sealing. Krause v. Nev. 

Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3776146, at *5 (D. Nev. July 16, 2013) (citing Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1179). Moreover, because “confidentiality alone does not transform business 

information into a trade secret,” a party alleging trade secret protection as a basis for 

sealing court records must show that the business information is in fact a trade secret. St. 

Clair v. Nellcor Puritan Bennett LLC, 2011 WL 5335559, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2011). 

Thus, only in extremely limited circumstances will confidential information actually 

merit the sealing of court records. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 (finding that 

conclusory statements about the content of documents did not provide “compelling 

reasons sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents”). 

III. Analysis

A. PCT’s Motion to File Under Seal

 PCT asks to file under seal six documents that it asserts contain “highly 

confidential commercially sensitive information.” (Doc. 216 at 2). The Court will address 

each document in turn. 

 1. PCT’s License Agreements

 PCT seeks to file under seal the excerpted expert report of David A. Haas 

previously attached as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Jamie R. Kurtz. (Id. at 5). This 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 3 of 17
- 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 

report contains, among other information, a discussion of royalty rates that PCT pays to 

license other patents for its use. PCT submits the declaration of PCT’s vice president 

Brandon Wilson, who testifies that PCT maintains the secrecy of its license agreements 

and these agreements are important to PCT’s competitive standing during patent 

licensing negotiations. (Doc. 216-2 at 2). 

Royalty rates contained in a license agreement can be trade secrets. See In re 

Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). “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.’” Id. (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). In 

MMI, Inc. v. Baja, Inc., 743 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (D. Ariz. 2010), the Court concluded that a 

license agreement including the royalty rate charged to licensees was a trade secret 

because the information was not generally known by others, the information was not 

readily ascertainable by proper means, and the license terms were business decisions that 

affected profitability. 743 F. Supp. 2d at 1106. 

The release of trade secrets is a compelling reason sufficient to outweigh the 

public’s interest in disclosure. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The Court concludes 

that PCT has demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing this document, and will permit 

PCT to file this document under seal. 

2. PCT’s Bag Label Drawings 

PCT seeks to file under seal bag and connector label drawings originally submitted 

as Exhibits 13, 37, and 38 to the Harting Declaration. (Doc. 216 at 7). These drawings 

contain specifications for the packaging in which PCT products are sent to customers,1

and show design elements such as PCT’s logo, the product name (for example, 

“compression connectors”), the typeface used for various pieces of text, and so forth. The 

drawings also show the identity of PCT’s manufacturer. 

 

1

 The connector label drawings contain specifications for a vinyl label that is presumably affixed to PCT’s connectors. 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 4 of 17
- 5 - 

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 

PCT asserts that the identity of its manufacturer is a protectable trade secret and 

that it has not publicly disclosed this identity. (Id. at 9). But PCT has disclosed its 

manufacturer several times, most significantly in its complaint in a collateral action in the 

District of Nevada. See Complaint at 5-7, Andes Industries, Inc., et al. v. Cheng Sun Lan, 

et al., No. 2:14-cv-00400-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Mar. 18, 2014). The Court takes judicial 

notice of the allegations in that complaint not for the truth of those allegations but merely 

for the fact that PCT filed them into the public record. Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(1); Peel v. 

BrooksAmerica Mortg. Corp., 788 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1157-58 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Because 

PCT has publicly disclosed the identity of its manufacturer, this information cannot 

qualify as a trade secret. See MMI, 743 F. Supp. 2d at 1105-06; A.R.S. § 44-401(4)(b) 

(Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act). Accordingly, PCT has not shown that these 

documents should be filed under seal. 

3. PCT’s Engineering Drawings

PCT also seeks to file under seal various engineering drawings of its connector 

designs originally submitted as Exhibits 36 and 39 to the Harting Declaration. (Doc. 216 

at 6). These drawings show the detailed dimensional specifications for PCT’s connectors, 

including measurements, design tolerances, and materials of manufacture. PCT asserts 

that it is difficult to reverse engineer PCT’s connectors to determine the precise 

dimensions of each component and that it would be extremely difficult and expensive to 

ascertain PCT’s precise design tolerances from finished connectors. (Doc. 216-2 at 2-3). 

PCT also asserts that these design tolerances have significant economic value, PCT has 

expended significant resources to define the optimal tolerances, and PCT does not 

publicly disclose these tolerances. (Id. at 3). PCT makes similar arguments concerning 

materials of manufacture. (Id. at 4-5). 

Because the Court finds portions of this information to constitute trade secrets, the 

Court will permit PCT to file these documents under seal. However, the drawings 

themselves are not trade secrets because they are merely schematics of connectors that 

PCT makes available for sale. Thus, PCT’s redacted public version of these documents 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 5 of 17
- 6 - 

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 

must redact only the numbers in the schematics that represent the measurements and 

design tolerances. The materials of manufacture must not be redacted. 

B. Holland’s Response to PCT’s Motion to File Under Seal

PCT originally also sought to file under seal documents that Holland had 

designated as protected under the protective order. Holland argues in its response to 

PCT’s motion to file under seal that PCT should be permitted to file these documents 

under seal. (Doc. 218 at 7). Because Holland has an interest in preserving the 

confidentiality of these documents, the Court will address Holland’s arguments. The 

Court will address each document in turn. 

1. Exhibit 6 to the Yang Declaration

Holland has redacted portions of the document originally filed as Exhibit 6 to the 

Yang Declaration that it considers to contain confidential information that “constitutes 

Holland’s trade secrets.” (Id. at 7). The Court has examined this document and notes that 

Holland’s proposed redactions include photos of its connectors and industry-standard 

tests for tensile strength. Because Holland sells its connectors to the public, there is 

nothing about conducting tests upon those connectors that falls into the classification of a 

trade secret. Metrics of how well Holland’s connectors perform in various environments 

are not trade secrets. 

This document also contains, however, reproductions of Holland’s engineering 

drawings that show the dimensions for components of Holland’s connectors as well as 

design tolerances. For the same reasons as the Court discussed above with respect to 

PCT’s engineering drawings, these are protectable trade secrets. But because the 

engineering drawings are included in this document for purposes other than referencing 

the dimensions and design tolerances, redaction of this irrelevant information is more 

appropriate than even filing the entire document under seal but redacting only the 

engineering drawings. Accordingly, the Court will permit this document to be filed under 

seal but the redacted public document must redact only the dimensions and design 

tolerances in the engineering drawings. 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 6 of 17
- 7 - 

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. Exhibit 8 to the Yang Declaration

 The document originally submitted as Exhibit 8 to the Yang Declaration is similar 

to Exhibit 6 to the Yang Declaration in that Holland proposes to redact an engineering 

drawing as well as a description of a test performed upon Holland’s connectors. Because 

the test procedure was performed in accordance with industry standards and Holland’s 

connectors are publicly available, Holland has not shown that selecting and performing 

tests upon its connectors constitute trade secrets. For the same reasons as discussed with 

respect to Exhibit 6 to the Yang Declaration, the Court will permit Exhibit 8 to the Yang 

Declaration to be filed under seal but the redacted public document must redact only the 

dimensions and design tolerances in the engineering drawings. 

 3. Exhibit 5 to the Kurtz Declaration

 Holland argues that the document originally submitted as Exhibit 5 to the Kurtz 

Declaration contains Holland’s trade secrets justifying sealing. (Doc. 218 at 7). Because 

the Court has already concluded that PCT may file this document under seal, the Court 

need not address Holland’s contentions. It appears to the Court that the protective order 

between PCT and Holland will require PCT to incorporate Holland’s suggested 

redactions. 

 4. Exhibit 7 to the Kurtz Declaration

 Holland has marked portions of the document originally submitted as Exhibit 7 to 

the Kurtz Declaration that it considers to be its trade secrets. These portions of the 

document include engineering drawings of Holland’s connectors and a report of a tensile 

test performed on Holland’s connectors. For the reasons discussed with respect to Exhibit 

6 to the Yang Declaration, the Court will permit PCT to file this document under seal but 

the redacted public version must redact only the dimensions and design tolerances in 

engineering drawings. 

 The Court further notes that Exhibit 7 to the Kurtz Declaration describes, in nonredacted text, that industry standard tests for “sealing performance and minimum axial 

pull forces” exist, including ANSI/SCTE 60 2004 and ANSI/SCTE 123 2006. The exhibit 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 7 of 17
- 8 - 

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 

also states that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the moisture 

penetration and axial pull tests are contained in the specific industry standards provided 

above and are the primary mechanical performance tests that deal with the termination of 

the cable to a connector by axial crimping.” Following this admission, it is somewhat 

incredible that Holland attempts to redact the results of these industry standard tests when 

any person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with these tests and can obtain 

Holland’s connectors to perform such tests. Thus, Holland’s proposed redactions are 

inappropriate. 

 5. Exhibit 1 to the Harting Declaration

 Holland asks that the Court permit PCT to file under seal the document originally 

submitted as Exhibit 1 to the Harting Declaration. (Doc. 218 at 7). The Court has 

reviewed Holland’s proposed redactions and finds inconsistencies that negate any 

protective effect. For example, although Holland redacts a column in a table that contains 

Holland part numbers for “outer barrel” component parts, Holland does not redact a 

sentence that lists those Holland products in which part number SLCU-6QA-CC is used. 

Regardless, Holland has not shown that its part numbers are themselves trade secrets. 

Holland also redacts references to a deposition of Michael Holland, but the references to 

a lawsuit filed by John Mezzalingua Associations, Inc. d/b/a PPC cannot be trade secrets 

because all lawsuits are public record. Similarly, Michael Holland’s testimony about 

redesigning Holland components is not a trade secret. The mere fact that this testimony 

could be embarrassing to Holland does not convert it into such. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1179. 

 The Court also fails to see how drawings of Holland outer barrel components 

showing no dimensions or design tolerances qualify as a trade secret when the level of 

detail in the drawings is no greater than that contained in PCT’s patent and anyone could 

disassemble a Holland connector and make such drawings. These drawings do not merit 

sealing. 

 Nevertheless, because this document also contains Holland’s engineering 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 8 of 17
- 9 - 

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 

drawings, the Court will permit PCT to file this document under seal, but the only 

redactions in the unsealed version shall be the dimensions, design tolerances, and 

manufacturer identities contained within the reproductions of the engineering drawings. 

 6. Exhibit 6 to the Harting Declaration

 Holland requests that PCT be permitted to file under seal the document originally 

submitted as Exhibit 6 to the Harting Declaration. (Doc. 218 at 7). The information 

proposed to be redacted in this document is Holland’s test data gathered in the 

performance of industry-standard tests on Holland’s connectors. For the reasons already 

stated, the parties have not demonstrated that this data is a trade secret. Nor does the 

description of Holland’s connector after crimping constitute a trade secret. The Court will 

not permit this document to be filed under seal. 

 7. Exhibit 22 to the Harting Declaration

 The document originally submitted as Exhibit 22 to the Harting Declaration is a 

transcript of a deposition of Reed Gibson, a Holland employee, who testified regarding 

tensile strength tests that Holland conducted on its connectors. For the reasons already 

stated, the Court will not permit this document to be filed under seal. 

 8. Exhibit 27 to the Harting Declaration

 The document originally submitted as Exhibit 27 to the Harting Declaration 

consists of an e-mail exchange between Holland and ezConn concerning a proposed 

change to one of Holland’s connectors. Although the contents of this e-mail may be 

embarrassing to Holland, there has been no showing that it contains trade secret 

information. However, the engineering drawing attached to the e-mail, which may not 

represent a final released product, may be a trade secret. Therefore, PCT may file this 

document under seal but the redacted public version must redact only the engineering 

drawing. 

 9. Exhibit 28 to the Harting Declaration

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 28 to the Harting Declaration is 

similar to Exhibit 27 in that it consists of an e-mail between Holland and ezConn along 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 9 of 17
- 10 - 

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 

with engineering drawing attachments. For the same reasons, PCT may file this document 

under seal but the redacted public version must redact only the engineering drawings. 

10. Exhibit 9 to the Kurtz Declaration

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 9 to the Kurtz Declaration contains 

a report concerning a royalty agreement between Holland and a third party. Because 

royalty rates contained in a license agreement can be trade secrets, and Holland alleges 

that Holland has maintained this license agreement as a confidential trade secret, (Doc. 

220 at 5), the Court will permit PCT to file this document under seal. 

11. Exhibit 11 to the Kurtz Declaration

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 11 to the Kurtz Declaration is a 

transcript of a deposition in which the deponent testifies as to the reasonable royalty rate 

in this case. The Court will permit this document to be filed under seal with the singleline redaction in the public version proposed by Holland. 

12. Exhibit 29 to the Harting Declaration

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 29 to the Harting Declaration is an 

excerpt from an expert report that discusses damages in terms of a reasonable royalty rate 

between PCT and Holland. As with Exhibit 11 to the Kurtz Declaration, the Court will 

permit this document to be filed under seal. 

13. Exhibit 30 to the Harting Declaration

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 30 to the Harting Declaration 

contains a single-page spreadsheet listing Holland’s sales data for certain connectors, 

including the average sales price. Because this information constitutes a trade secret, the 

Court will permit it to be filed under seal. 

14. Exhibit 21 to the Harting Declaration

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 21 to the Harting Declaration is a 

deposition transcript in which the deponent testified as to the historical relationship 

between Holland and its parent company Amphenol with respect to sales. Because this 

testimony was strictly historical and not prospective, the Court cannot conclude that it is 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 10 of 17
- 11 - 

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 

a trade secret. The Court will not permit PCT to file this document under seal. 

15. Exhibit 31 to the Harting Declaration

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 31 to the Harting Declaration is a 

deposition transcript in which the deponent testified as to the accounting reports that 

Holland generates and regularly transmits to its parent company Amphenol. The text that 

Holland proposes to redact concerns the fact that Holland uses accounting software each 

month to report the number of employees, the income statement, balance sheet, 

intercompany sales, and the like. There are no specific numbers concerning any of these 

reports. There also is no evidence that the fact Holland reports regularly to its parent 

company is a trade secret. Indeed, anyone with business experience would expect a 

subsidiary to provide regular accounting reports to its parent company. The Court will not 

permit PCT to file this document under seal. 

16. Exhibit 13 to the Kurtz Declaration

The document originally submitted as Exhibit 13 to the Kurtz Declaration is a 

deposition transcript in which the deponent discusses a licensing agreement between 

Holland and a third party. For the reasons discussed with respect to Exhibit 9 to the Kurtz 

Declaration, the Court will permit PCT to file this document under seal. 

C. Holland’s Motion to File Under Seal

 Holland asks in its motion to file under seal to seal ten documents that it alleges 

contain confidential information and trade secrets. (Doc. 214 at 6-7). The Court will 

address each document in turn. 

1. Exhibit 1

 The document lodged under seal as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Greer Shaw in 

Support of Defendant Holland Electronics, LLC’s Revised Motion to File Under Seal 

(the “Shaw Declaration”) (Doc. 214-1) is the expert report of Carl G. Degen and contains 

a discussion of proposed royalty rates, an existing license agreement between Holland 

and a third party, and Holland’s sales data. Because these are trade secrets, the Court will 

permit this document to be filed under seal. 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 11 of 17
- 12 - 

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. Exhibit 2

 Holland asserts that Exhibit 2 to the Shaw Declaration contains confidential trade 

secrets justifying sealing. (Doc. 214 at 12). This document contains excerpts from a 

deposition transcript in which certain internal Holland tests are described as well as 

royalty rates from a particular licensing agreement. Because Holland’s royalties and 

licensing agreements are trade secrets, the Court will permit this document to be filed 

under seal. Holland must not redact any portions of the transcript pertaining to Holland’s 

testing of its connectors. For the reasons discussed with respect to Exhibit 7 to the Kurtz 

Declaration, the results of testing Holland’s products according to industry-standard 

criteria, even with certain modifications to those products, cannot be a trade secret 

because this information is easily obtainable through proper means. 

 3. Exhibit 3

 Exhibit 3 to the Shaw Declaration is the expert report of David A. Haas and 

contains discussions of royalties and a licensing agreement between Holland and a third 

party. Because this information constitutes Holland’s trade secrets, the Court will permit 

this document to be filed under seal. However, as with Exhibit 2, Holland must not redact 

any portions of the transcript pertaining to Holland’s testing of its connectors. 

 4. Exhibit 4

 Exhibit 4 to the Shaw Declaration is a series of photographs of Holland 

connectors. These photos show connectors that have been subjected to Holland’s testing 

protocol. Holland’s label of this information as confidential does not automatically 

elevate it to the status of trade secret. Because these connectors are publicly available, 

and Holland has not demonstrated that the act of performing a standard test upon publicly 

available connectors is a trade secret, the Court will not permit these photos to be filed 

under seal. 

 5. Exhibit 5

 Exhibit 5 to the Shaw Declaration is an infringement rebuttal report of Daniel 

Whittle. This document contains, among other things, reproductions of Holland’s 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 12 of 17
- 13 - 

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 

engineering drawings showing the dimensions and design tolerances of its connectors, 

photos showing Holland connectors after crimping, and discussion of photos of Holland 

connectors. For the reasons previously discussed with respect to other proposed sealed 

documents, although the dimensions and design tolerances of Holland’s connectors are 

trade secrets, Holland’s tests upon those connectors are not. The Court will permit 

Holland to file this document under seal but the redactions in the public version must be 

only the dimensions and design tolerances listed within the reproductions of Holland’s 

engineering drawings. 

 6. Exhibit 6

 Exhibit 6 to the Shaw Declaration is an expert report containing Holland’s 

engineering drawings as well as discussion of Holland’s tests performed upon its 

connectors. For the reasons previously discussed with respect to other documents, the 

Court will permit this document to be filed under seal. However, Holland’s redacted 

public version of this document must redact only the dimensions and design tolerances 

contained within Holland’s engineering drawings. 

 7. Exhibit 7

 Exhibit 7 to the Shaw Declaration is a Holland report describing the procedure and 

outcome of an axial pull force test of Holland’s connectors. Although this information 

may be confidential, Holland has not shown that it is a trade secret because these results 

could be easily duplicated by anyone with access to Holland’s connectors and industrystandard test equipment. The Court will not permit this document to be filed under seal. 

 8. Exhibit 8

 Exhibit 8 to the Shaw Declaration is a Holland report describing the procedure and 

outcome of an axial force pull test of Holland’s connectors. For the same reasons as 

discussed with respect to the preceding document, the Court finds that Holland has not 

established that this report is a trade secret and the Court will not permit this document to 

be filed under seal. 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 13 of 17
- 14 - 

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 

 9. Exhibit 9

 Exhibit 9 to the Shaw Declaration is excerpts from the deposition of Michael 

Holland, in which he discusses a license agreement between Holland and a third party, 

including royalty rates. Because royalty rates and the terms of licensing agreements are 

trade secrets, the Court will permit this document to be filed under seal. 

 10. Exhibit 10

 Exhibit 10 to the Shaw Declaration is excerpts from the deposition of Jason Holt, 

in which he discusses a license agreement between Holland and a third party. Because the 

terms of this license agreement are a trade secret, the Court will permit this document to 

be filed under seal. 

B. PCT’s Response to Holland’s Motion to File Under Seal

 PCT argues in its response to Holland’s motion to file under seal that two 

documents originally filed by Holland contain PCT’s confidential information and should 

be filed under seal. (Doc. 217 at 2). 

 1. Exhibit 3

 PCT asserts that Exhibit 3 to the Shaw Declaration contains information 

concerning licensing agreements between PCT and third parties, and as such, contains 

trade secrets justify sealing. (Id. at 3). For the same reasons as the Court has discussed 

with respect to Holland’s licensing information, the Court will permit Holland to file this 

document under seal. Accordingly, Holland must incorporate PCT’s proposed redactions 

when filing the public version of this document. 

 2. Exhibit 11

 Exhibit 11 to the Shaw Declaration consists of bag drawings for PCT products 

showing the dimensions, color, and text of the packaging in which PCT products are sold. 

As the Court has already discussed, this information does not constitute a trade secret. 

The Court will not permit Holland to file this document under seal. 

IV. Conclusion

 The Court previously stated that after ruling on the motions to file under seal, it 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 14 of 17
- 15 - 

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 

would set a briefing schedule for the parties’ new versions of their dispositive motions. 

(Doc. 213 at 9). Because the parties have already written their motions, the Court will set 

an accelerated briefing schedule. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting in part and denying in part PCT’s Renewed Motion to 

File Under Seal Certain Documents (Doc. 216). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PCT may file under seal as needed the 

following documents identified in Doc. 216-1, Exhibit A: (1) “Kurtz Decl. Ex. 5, 

Excerpts of the Expert Report of David Haas served on April 7, 2014”; (2) “Harting Decl. 

Ex. 36, PCT top-level engineering drawing for its TRS-6L coaxial cable connector, 

produced by PCT during fact discovery at Bates number PCTH0006882”; (3) “Harting 

Decl. Ex. 39, Excerpts of exemplary PCT engineering specifications for the ERS-6 and 

ERS-59 coaxial cable connectors, produced by PCT during fact discovery as Bates 

numbers: PCTH0280484, PCTH0280489, PCTHS0013688, pp. 1 and 6 (native)”; (4) 

“Yang Decl. Ex. 6, Infringement Rebuttal report of Daniel J. Whittle, PHD in Support of 

Defendant, dated April 7, 2014, including parts 1-4”; (5) “Yang Decl. Ex. 8, Report 

Regarding Available and Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives of Daniel J. Whittle, 

PHD in Support of Defendant, dated April 7, 2014”; (6) “Kurtz Decl. Ex 7, Report 

Regarding Available and Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives of Daniel J. Whittle, 

PhD, served on April 7, 2014”; (7) “Harting Decl. Ex. 1, Infringement Report of Dr. 

James Dickens, Ph.D., including appendices A-N thereto”; (8) “Harting Decl. Ex. 27, 

Email correspondence between Holland & EZconn, marked as Holland Deposition 

Exhibit 46, and produced by Holland during fact discovery as Bates number HOLL 

42324 – HOLL 42325”; (9) “Harting Decl. Ex. 28, Email correspondence between 

Holland & EZconn, marked as Holland Deposition Exhibit 47, and produced by Holland 

during fact discovery as Bates number HOLL 44494 – HOLL 44496”; (10) “Kurtz Decl. 

Ex. 9, Holland Production Documents HOL2002827-HOL2002867”; (11) “Kurtz Decl. 

Ex. 11, Excerpts of the deposition of David A. Haas taken on April 21, 2014”; (12) 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 15 of 17
- 16 - 

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 

“Harting Decl. Ex. 29, Excerpts from the Expert Report of David A. Haas”; (13) “Harting 

Decl. Ex. 30, Defendant’s Fifth Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of 

Interrogatories”; and (14) “Kurtz Decl. Ex. 13, Excerpts of the deposition of David A. 

Haas taken on April 21, 2014.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Holland’s 

Revised Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 214). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Holland may file under seal as needed the 

following documents that Holland has lodged under seal as exhibits to the Shaw 

Declaration (Doc. 214-1): (1) Exhibit 1; (2) Exhibit 2; (3) Exhibit 3; (4) Exhibit 5; (5) 

Exhibit 6; (6) Exhibit 9; and (7) Exhibit 10. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for each document a party files under seal, 

that party shall also file a redacted version not under seal. If the Court has specified the 

scope of redactions in this Order, then the party shall comply with those redactions. If the 

Court has not specified the scope of redactions in this Order, then the party shall redact 

according to the proposed redactions previously submitted to the Court. Failure to redact 

according to this Order will result in the Court striking the nonconforming document in 

both its sealed and unsealed versions and not considering it on summary judgment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PCT nor Holland shall not file any documents 

under seal other than those explicitly permitted in this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent the Court has declined to permit 

the filing of a particular document under seal, any information contained in that 

document is not subject to the Protective Order (Doc. 53) for purposes of summary 

judgment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may, on or before December 1, 

2014, file the following motions: (1) PCT’s motion to exclude the expert opinion of 

David A. Haas; (2) PCT’s motion to exclude the expert opinion of Daniel J. Whittle; and 

(3) Holland’s motion for summary judgment (alternatively, for partial summary judgment 

and to preclude any theory of indirect infringement for lack of disclosure). Any responses 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 16 of 17
- 17 - 

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 

are due December 8, 2014. Any replies are due December 15, 2014. 

 Dated this 18th day of November, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-01797-JAT Document 221 Filed 11/18/14 Page 17 of 17