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

Qualcomm Opposition to MediaTek’s Administrative Motion to Seal

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

Robert A. Van Nest (SBN 84065)

rvannest@keker.com

Eugene M. Paige (SBN 202849)

epaige@keker.com

Justina Sessions (SBN 270914)

jsessions@keker.com

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice) 

gbornstein@cravath.com

Yonatan Even (pro hac vice)

yeven@cravath.com 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, New York 10019-7475 

Telephone: (212) 474-1000

Facsimile: (212) 474-3700

Attorneys for Defendant 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Richard S. Taffet (pro hac vice)

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com

101 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10178-0060

Telephone: (212) 309-6000

Facsimile: (212) 309-6001

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Willard K. Tom (pro hac vice)

willard.tom@morganlewis.com

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20004-2541

Telephone: (202) 739-3000

Facsimile: (202) 739-3001

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Geoffrey T. Holtz (SBN 191370)

gholtz@morganlewis.com

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105-1596

Telephone: (415) 442-1000

Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware 

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC

DEFENDANT QUALCOMM 

INCORPORATED’S OPPOSITION TO

NONPARTY MEDIATEK INC.’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1134 Filed 01/06/19 Page 1 of 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

Qualcomm Opposition to MediaTek’s Administrative Motion to Seal

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC

Qualcomm opposes MediaTek, Inc.’s (“MediaTek”) request to close the courtroom during 

the testimony of MediaTek’s witness, Finbarr Moynihan and to seal two trial exhibits to be used 

by the FTC (CX3551 and CX3542)1. MediaTek’s request is unworkable and unfair.

A. MediaTek’s Request to Seal the Courtroom is Unworkable and Unfair

MediaTek seeks an unreasonable order either sealing the courtroom throughout 

Mr. Moynihan’s testimony or, alternatively, during “any questioning by the parties” regarding 

numerous broad such as MediaTek’s margins, profitability, future plans, roadmaps, competitive 

position, and potential customers. See ECF No. 1124 at 1. MediaTek’s request is unjustified, 

contrary to the court’s existing practice in this case, and would cause undue delay and burden. 

Closing the courtroom for the entirety of Mr. Moynihan’s testimony would be unfair and 

inconsistent with the Court’s practice to date. The general topics that MediaTek identifies do not 

rise to the level of necessitating such an extreme measure. 

Its alternative request to close the courtroom on a question-by-question basis is similarly 

unfair and unworkable. Closing the courtroom depending on the topic of questioning would 

necessitate a question-by-question determination by the Court as to whether the testimony elicited 

covers one of these topics. Such a process would be disruptive, waste time, and is unjustified as 

MediaTek has failed to offer sufficient “compelling reasons” for such an extreme measure. 

The Court should not close the courtroom for all or parts of Mr. Moynihan’s testimony.

B. The Documents MediaTek Seals Do Not Meet the Compelling Interest 

Standard, But Qualcomm Does Not Object to those Document Being Sealed 

and Not Displayed on the Public Monitor

The two FTC trial exhibits that MediaTek seeks to seal do not meet the “compelling 

interest” standard. 

• CX3542 is a communication from 2015, more than 36 months ago. The parties 

have previously agreed that materials older than 36 months would presumptively 

not be sealed—though that presumption could be rebutted.. See ECF No. 1067. 

Moreover, the document merely concerns a “potential” or “prospective” customer. 

 1 MediaTek also has requested that CX3545 be sealed, but that request is now moot because the 

Court sustained Qualcomm’s HPO objection to that document.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1134 Filed 01/06/19 Page 2 of 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

Qualcomm Opposition to MediaTek’s Administrative Motion to Seal

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC

ECF No. 1124 at 3. The communication does not refer to an actual agreement 

with a customer or MediaTek’s dealings with a customer at that time.

• CX3551 is a high-level presentation from 2017. MediaTek claims the document 

discusses “financials, margins, profitability, costs, and future product plans,” id. at 

2, but it asks the Court to indiscriminately seal the entire document. MediaTek has 

failed to narrowly tailor its request by identifying the portions of the documents 

that contain purportedly confidential information, nor has it explained how that 

specific information is competitively sensitive to such an extent that it meets the 

“compelling interest” standard.

That said, consistent with practice to date, Qualcomm does not object to having the 

courtroom’s public monitors turned off when these documents are discussed and to having the 

FTC lodge those exhibits under seal if the court deems that appropriate. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1134 Filed 01/06/19 Page 3 of 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

Qualcomm Opposition to MediaTek’s Administrative Motion to Seal

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC

January 6, 2019 By: /s/ Geoffrey T. Holtz

Geoffrey T. Holtz

Geoffrey T. Holtz (SBN 191370)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105-1596

Tel.: (415) 442-1000

Fax: (415) 442-1001

gholtz@morganlewis.com

Robert A. Van Nest (SBN 84065)

Eugene M. Paige (SBN 202849)

Justina Sessions (SBN 270914)

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS 

LLPKEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice)

Yonatan Even (pro hac vice)

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Worldwide Plaza

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019-7475

Tel.: (212) 474-1000

Fax: (212) 474-3700

gbornstein@cravath.com

yeven@cravath.com

Richard S. Taffet (pro hac vice)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

101 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10178-0060

Tel.: (212) 309-6000

Fax: (212) 309-6001

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com

Willard K. Tom (pro hac vice)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20004-2541

Tel.: (202) 739-3000

Fax: (202) 739 3001

willard.tom@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1134 Filed 01/06/19 Page 4 of 4