DECLARATION OF NATHAN P. EIMER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL THE FTC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO 

EXCLUDE LG TESTIMONY (DOC. 959)

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 1 

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

Nathan P. Eimer (pro hac vice) 

Brian Y. Chang (SBN 287757) 

EIMER STAHL LLP 

224 South Michigan Avenue 

Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Phone: (312) 660-7600 

Fax: (312) 692-1718 

neimer@eimerstahl.com 

bchang@eimerstahl.com 

Attorneys for non-party 

LG Electronics, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 

The Honorable Lucy H. Koh 

DECLARATION OF NATHAN P. EIMER 

IN SUPPORT OF 

JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL THE FTC’S 

OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S 

MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO 

EXCLUDE LG TESTIMONY (DOC. 959)

 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 981 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 7
 

DECLARATION OF NATHAN P. EIMER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL THE FTC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO 

EXCLUDE LG TESTIMONY (DOC. 959)

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 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

 I, Nathan P. Eimer, do declare and state as follows: 

1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Eimer Stahl LLP, counsel for non-party 

LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) in relation to the above-captioned matter. I am a member in good 

standing of the State Bar of Illinois. I submit this declaration in support of the Joint Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal the FTC’s Opposition to Qualcomm’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to 

Exclude LG Testimony (the “Joint Motion to Seal”) (Doc. 959). I have personal knowledge of the 

facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to 

such facts under oath. 

2. I have reviewed the Joint Motion to Seal (Doc. 959), the Declaration of Jennifer 

Milici in Support of the Joint Motion to Seal (Doc. 959-1), the Declaration of Gary A. Bornstein in 

Support of the Joint Motion to Seal (Doc. 959-2), and the FTC’s Opposition to Qualcomm’s 

Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude LG Testimony and exhibits (Doc. 959-3), with the policy 

considerations outlined in Civil Local Rule 79-5 in mind. 

3. Exhibit 1 to the FTC’s Opposition to Qualcomm’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to 

Exclude LG Testimony (“Exhibit 1”) is a copy of a portion of LGE’s written responses, dated 

March 30, 2018, to a Letter of Request from the Federal Trade Commission and Qualcomm, Inc. 

These written responses were designated by LGE as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS 

EYES ONLY” under the Protective Orders in In re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation, No. 17-md02773-LHK-NMC (N.D. Cal.); Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 17-cv00220-LHK-NMC (N.D. Cal.); and Apple, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 17-cv-0108-GPCMDD (S.D. Cal.). LGE asks that the following portions of Exhibit 1 be kept under seal for the 

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” described below. Kamakana v. City & 

Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 

4. First, compelling reasons exist to keep under seal the highly confidential information 

contained in certain responses of Tony (Taekwon) Son, listed below, because the responses disclose 

competitive business information and sensitive licensing practices. The specific factual findings 

supporting the reasons for sealing each response are described below: 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 981 Filed 12/11/18 Page 2 of 7
 

DECLARATION OF NATHAN P. EIMER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL THE FTC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO 

EXCLUDE LG TESTIMONY (DOC. 959)

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 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

Tony Son 

Responses 

Type of Information Compelling Reasons to Seal 

¶¶12–15 Trade secrets, including pricing terms and 

conditions for LGE’s baseband purchasing 

strategy 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

with suppliers and put LGE at 

a disadvantage among 

competitors 

¶ 17 Trade secrets embodying business impact of 

LGE’s purchasing options in the baseband 

processor market, including production and supply 

capacity information 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

with suppliers and put LGE at 

a disadvantage among 

competitors 

¶¶ 19–27 Trade secrets, including but not limited to:

(a) Business impact of LGE’s purchasing 

options in the baseband processor market, 

including production and supply capacity 

information; 

(b) Business strategy choices illustrating 

competitive product mix; and 

(c) Competitive supplier selection strategy 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

with suppliers and put LGE at 

a disadvantage among 

competitors 

¶¶ 29–33 Trade secrets, including but not limited to:

(a) Business impact of LGE’s purchasing 

options in the baseband processor market, 

including production and supply capacity 

information; 

(b) Business strategy choices illustrating 

competitive product mix; and 

(c) Competitive supplier selection strategy 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

with suppliers and put LGE at 

a disadvantage among 

competitors 

¶¶ 36–42 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of patent 

licensing arrangements, including duration and 

scope of license 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

with suppliers and put LGE at 

a disadvantage among 

competitors 

¶¶ 44–107 Trade secrets, including but not limited to:

(a) Business impact of LGE’s purchasing 

options in the baseband processor market, 

including production and supply capacity 

information; 

(b) Business strategy choices illustrating 

competitive product mix; and 

(c) Competitive supplier selection strategy 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

with suppliers and put LGE at 

a disadvantage among 

competitors 

5. Second, compelling reasons exist to keep under seal the highly confidential 

information contained in certain questions and responses of Hwi-Jae Cho, listed below, because the 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 981 Filed 12/11/18 Page 3 of 7
 

DECLARATION OF NATHAN P. EIMER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL THE FTC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO 

EXCLUDE LG TESTIMONY (DOC. 959)

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 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

questions and responses disclose competitive business information and sensitive licensing practices. 

The specific factual findings supporting the reasons for sealing each questions and response are 

described below: 

Hwi-Jae Cho 

Questions & 

Responses 

Type of Information Compelling Reasons to Seal 

¶¶ 8–16 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of license 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors 

¶ 17 (question 

and response) 

Question: The title of Exhibit 2 referenced in 

the question includes identifying information 

about the year and type of licensing agreement 

Response: Trade secrets embodying specific 

terms of patent licensing arrangements, 

including duration and scope of license 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors 

¶ 19 (question 

and response) 

Question: The title of Exhibit 3 referenced in 

the question includes identifying information 

about the year and type of licensing agreement 

Response: Trade secrets embodying specific 

terms of patent licensing arrangements, 

including duration and scope of licenses 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors 

¶¶ 21–28 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of licenses and royalty 

calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors 

¶¶ 33–36 Trade secrets embodying specific claims 

asserted in arbitration and accompanying 

foundational answers disclosing confidential 

third-party information 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶ 38(a)–(h) Trade secrets, including but not limited to:

(a) Specific claims asserted in arbitration; 

(b) Accompanying foundational answers 

disclosing confidential third-party 

information; and 

(c) Specific terms of patent licensing 

arrangements, including duration and 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 981 Filed 12/11/18 Page 4 of 7
 

DECLARATION OF NATHAN P. EIMER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL THE FTC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO 

EXCLUDE LG TESTIMONY (DOC. 959)

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 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

Hwi-Jae Cho 

Questions & 

Responses 

Type of Information Compelling Reasons to Seal 

scope of licenses and royalty 

calculations 

¶¶ 40–43 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of licenses, negotiation 

positions, and royalty calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 45–47 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of licenses, negotiation 

positions, and royalty calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 49–52 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of licenses, negotiation 

positions, and royalty calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 54–57 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of licenses, negotiation 

positions, and royalty calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 59–62 Trade secrets embodying business impact of 

LGE’s licensing negotiation strategy, including 

possible attorney-client privileged 

communications and work product 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 64–169 Trade secrets, including but not limited to:

(a) Specific claims asserted in arbitration; 

(b) Accompanying foundational answers 

disclosing confidential third-party 

information; and 

(c) Specific terms of patent licensing 

arrangements, including duration and 

scope of licenses and royalty 

calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 171–80 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of licenses, negotiation 

positions, and royalty calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 183–208 Trade secrets embodying business impact of 

LGE’s licensing negotiation strategy, including 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 981 Filed 12/11/18 Page 5 of 7
 

DECLARATION OF NATHAN P. EIMER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL THE FTC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO 

EXCLUDE LG TESTIMONY (DOC. 959)

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 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

Hwi-Jae Cho 

Questions & 

Responses 

Type of Information Compelling Reasons to Seal 

possible attorney-client privileged 

communications and work product LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 210–11 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of licenses, negotiation 

positions, and royalty calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 213–30 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of licenses, negotiation 

positions, and royalty calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 232–45 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of licenses, negotiation 

positions, and royalty calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

¶¶ 247–58 Trade secrets embodying specific terms of 

patent licensing arrangements, including 

duration and scope of licenses, negotiation 

positions, and royalty calculations 

Disclosure could harm LGE’s 

position in future negotiations 

for patent licenses and put 

LGE at a disadvantage with 

competitors. 

6. To protect LGE from substantial competitive harm, LGE respectfully requests that 

the confidential portions of Tony Son’s and Hwi-Jae Cho’s written testimony identified above be 

fully redacted and sealed from public access. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 

Executed on December 11, 2018, in Chicago, Illinois. 

By: __/s/ __Nathan P. Eimer____________ 

Nathan P. Eimer (pro hac vice) 

EIMER STAHL LLP 

224 South Michigan Avenue 

Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 981 Filed 12/11/18 Page 6 of 7
 

DECLARATION OF NATHAN P. EIMER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL THE FTC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO 

EXCLUDE LG TESTIMONY (DOC. 959)

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 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

Phone: (312) 660-7600 

Fax: (312) 692-1718 

neimer@eimerstahl.com 

Attorney for non-party 

LG Electronics, Inc. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 981 Filed 12/11/18 Page 7 of 7