Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05094/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05094-41/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

REMBRANDT PATENT INNOVATIONS

LLC, and REMBRANDT SECURE

COMPUTING, LP,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 14-05094 WHA (lead)

No. C 14-05093 WHA (consolidated)

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

Apple moves to file under seal certain exhibits submitted in support of its motion or

summary judgment and its reply (Dkt. Nos. 174, 190). Rembrandt moves to file under seal its

brief and certain exhibits submitted in support of its opposition to Apple’s motion (Dkt. No.

177). Apple’s declaration in support of Rembrandt’s sealing motion dedesignates Exhibits 8,

10, and 11 to the declaration of Jacob A. Schroeder, so Rembrandt’s motion is DENIED as to

those materials. Apple contends that the remaining materials sought to be sealed contain

confidential information including Apple’s source code, the supply chain and testing process for

its hardware, and business and financial information, the dissemination of which, Apple

contends, could be materially harmful to Apple. 

Rembrandt’s brief cites the deposition testimony of Apple’s 30(b)(6) witness and the

report of Apple’s expert all discussing the nature of the accused products recovery process, a

key issue in the upcoming motion. Apple has offered no explanation of how the public release

of those materials could be harmful at all particularly since similar materials appear unredacted

Case 3:14-cv-05094-WHA Document 197 Filed 06/08/16 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

in Apple’s own briefs. Accordingly, Rembrandt’s motion is DENIED as to the redacted

materials on pages 13–15 of Rembrandt’s opposition brief. 

The parties’ sealing motions are otherwise GRANTED. This is without prejudice to

whether these materials could be sealed if presented at trial or at the upcoming oral argument on

the parties’ respective motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-05094-WHA Document 197 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 2