1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF 

QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

Re: Dkt. No. 1024

Before the Court is a joint administrative motion to file under seal Qualcomm Inc.’s 

(“Qualcomm”) motion to exclude expert reports of Richard L. Donaldson, including attached 

exhibits. ECF No. 1024. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in 

part the instant motion to seal.

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 13
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially 

related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 

1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons 

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally 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, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he 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.

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 

of a case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 

1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court 

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or 

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted)). Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially 

related to the merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1179–80. The “good cause” standard 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) (citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” 

will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation 

omitted).

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 2 of 13
3

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has 

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[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.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) 

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the 

production of goods . . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 

business . . . .” Id. (alterations in original). Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has 

recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources 

of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 

598.

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or 

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be 

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil [Local 

Rule] 79-5(d).” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a 

“proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table 

format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted 

version of the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of 

the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1). The 

parties shall file concurrent with the administrative motion to file under seal all necessary 

declarations establishing that the information sought to be sealed is sealable. Pursuant to the 

Court’s order at ECF No. 821, where the parties seek to seal information designated confidential 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 3 of 13
4

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

by a non-party, that non-party “will have seven days, rather than the four days prescribed in Civil 

Local Rule 79-5” to file the non-party’s declaration in support of sealing. ECF No. 821 at 2.

Here, the information sought to be sealed consists of portions of the accompanying 

exhibits to Qualcomm’s motion to exclude the expert reports of Richard L. Donaldson. The Court 

concludes that the “compelling reasons” standard applies because Qualcomm’s motion is “more 

than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 

1099. The motion’s subject matter—whether to allow the expert reports of Richard Donaldson, 

one of the FTC’s key expert witnesses, at trial—is central to the merits of the FTC’s claims in the 

instant case. Moreover, the compelling reasons standard is what the parties have applied as well. 

See ECF No. 1024 at 2-18. 

The Court now turns to the substance of the sealing motion. The parties have submitted 

many declarations providing that portions of the exhibits are sealable. ECF Nos. 1024-7 to 1024-

21. The rationale provided in all the declarations is essentially the same—namely, that the 

information sought to be sealed reveals sensitive internal information regarding either 

Qualcomm’s or third parties’ patent portfolios, contracts, and commercial strategies.

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court grants in part and denies in part the 

parties’ motion to seal. As explained, in Kamakana, the Ninth Circuit held that compelling 

reasons exist to seal court records when the records may be used to “release trade secrets.” 447 

F.3d at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Moreover, “the common law right of inspection has 

bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records are not used . . . as sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. 

App’x 568, 569 (9th C9r. 2008) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The Ninth Circuit has held, and 

this Court has previously ruled, that “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum 

payment terms” of patent licensing agreements plainly constitute trade secrets, and are thus 

sealable. Id.; accord ECF No. 135 at 4.

To the extent that the instant motion seeks to seal information that, if published, may harm 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 4 of 13
5

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

Qualcomm’s or third parties’ competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, 

contract negotiations, or trade secrets, the Court agrees with the parties that compelling reasons 

exist to seal this information. However, some of the information sought to be sealed is either 

already public, or does not constitute or disclose confidential information. The parties have not 

articulated “compelling reasons” to keep such information from the public. Accordingly, with the 

Ninth Circuit’s sealing case law in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

ECF Document Page/Line Ruling

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 3, from “comprised” to 

“revenues”

GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 3, remainder DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 4, last two sentences GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 4, remainder DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 5 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 6 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 7 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 8 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 36 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 37 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 38 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 39 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 40 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 41 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 42 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 44 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 45 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 47 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 49 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 50 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 51 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 52 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 53 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 54 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 55 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 56 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 57 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 58 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 59 GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 5 of 13
6

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 60 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 61 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 62 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 74 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 75 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 91 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 97, pp. 42-43 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 100 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 101 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 103, p. 46 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 105, first two sentences DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 105, “licensees” to “1990s” GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 106 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 107 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 109 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 110, from “Qualcomm to 

“example:”

DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 110, remainder GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 111 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 112, from “sometimes” to 

“duration”

GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 112, remainder DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 113 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 115 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 116 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 117 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 124 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 125 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 126 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 127 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 128 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 129 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 130 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 131 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 132 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 133, from “Ultimately” to 

“period.”

GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 133, remainder DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 134 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 135 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 136 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 137 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 138 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 139 GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 6 of 13
7

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 140 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 141 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 142 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 143 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 144 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 146 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 147 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 148, from “Up until that time” to 

“Qualcomm.”

GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 148, remainder DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 149 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 150 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 151 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 152 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 153 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 154 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 155, from “In addition, 

Samsung’s” to “Qualcomm.”

GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 155, remainder DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 156 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 157 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 158 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 159 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 160, from “it seems clear” to 

“speed up negotiations.”

DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 160, remainder GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 161 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 164 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 166, the sentencing beginning 

with “At TI.”

GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 166 DENIED. The fact that TI

categorizes its patent 

portfolio into two groups is 

already public. See ECF 

No. 975 at 9.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 167 DENIED. The fact that TI 

categorizes its patent 

portfolio into two groups is 

already public. See ECF 

No. 975 at 9.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 168 DENIED. The fact that TI 

categorizes its patent 

portfolio into two groups is 

already public. See ECF 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 7 of 13
8

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

No. 975 at 9.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 169 DENIED. The fact that TI 

categorizes its patent 

portfolio into two groups is 

already public. See ECF 

No. 975 at 9.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 172 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 173 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 ¶ 174 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.1 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.25 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.26 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.27 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.29 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.30 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.31, from “See Qualcomm” to 

“Deposition”

GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.31, remainder DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.33 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.34 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.35 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.36 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.40 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.41 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.42 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.44 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.45 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.47 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.51 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.54 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.55 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.58 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.61 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.64 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.67 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.68 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.69 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.72 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.73 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.74 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.76 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.77 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.79 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.82 GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 8 of 13
9

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.83 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.86 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.88 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.91 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.93 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.100 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.101 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.103 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.104 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.106 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.108 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.117 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.118 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.119 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.124 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.125 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.128 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.130 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.131 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.132 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.133 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.135 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.137 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.139 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.141 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.143 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.144 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.149 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.150, from “See” to “(CX4321);” GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.150, remainder DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.153 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.155 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.156 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.157 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.160 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.162 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.163 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.164, from “Investigative 

Testimony of Lynn” to 

“negotiations);”

DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.164, remainder GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.165 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.166 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.171, “Deposition of” to “2018;” DENIED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 9 of 13
10

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.171, remainder GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.173 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.176 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.177 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.178 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.190 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.191 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.192 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.193 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.194 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.195 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.197 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.198 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.199 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.200 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.201 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.202 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.203 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.204 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.205 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.206, “Deposition of Ira” to “Apr. 

20, 2018”

DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.206, remainder GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.207 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.208 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.209 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.212 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.214 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.215 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.216 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.217 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.220 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.221 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.222 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.223, “Deposition of” to “Mar. 1, 

2018;”

DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.223, remainder GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.224, “Deposition of” to “Mar. 1, 

2018;”

DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.224, remainder GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.230 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.231 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.232, “Hague Convention 

Testimony” to “Mar. 30, 2018);”

DENIED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 10 of 13
11

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.232, remainder GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.233 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.234 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.235 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.236 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.239 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.240 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.241 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.244 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.245 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.246 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.247 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.248 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.249 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.250 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.251 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.252 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.253 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.254 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.257 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.259 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.260 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.262 DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.264, from “Deposition” to “Mar. 

15, 2018;”

DENIED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.264, remainder GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.265 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.266 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.267 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.269 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.271 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.274 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.275 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.277 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.279 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.283 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.284 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.286 GRANTED.

799-2 Exhibit 1 n.288 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 3 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 13 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 18 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 19 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 20 GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 11 of 13
12

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 21, “longer than 10 years” DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 21, remainder GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 22, from “In contrast” to 

“important to Qualcomm.”

DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 22, remainder GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 24 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 25 DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 26 DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 27 DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 28 DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 29 DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 30 DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 31 DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 32 DENIED. The fact that TI 

categorizes its patent 

portfolio into two groups is 

already public. See ECF 

No. 975 at 9.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 33, last 3 sentences GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 33, remainder DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 34 DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 35 DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 39, from “as well as my personal 

involvement” to “TI.”

DENIED. The fact that TI 

categorizes its patent 

portfolio into two groups is 

already public. See ECF 

No. 975 at 9.

799-3 Exhibit 2 ¶ 39, remainder GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 Fig. 1, p. 12 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 n.10 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 n.35 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 n.37 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 n.40 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 n.41 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 n.50 DENIED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 n.67 GRANTED.

799-3 Exhibit 2 n.68 DENIED.

799-4 Exhibit 3 p. 11, ll. 2-13 GRANTED.

799-4 Exhibit 3 p. 11, ll. 20-25 DENIED.

799-4 Exhibit 3 p. 12, ll. 3-18 DENIED.

799-4 Exhibit 3 p. 77, ll. 2-5 GRANTED.

799-4 Exhibit 3 p. 106, ll. 16-19 DENIED.

799-4 Exhibit 3 p. 109, ll. 21-25 DENIED.

799-4 Exhibit 3 p. 113, ll. 16-17 GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 12 of 13
13

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF QUALCOMM INC.'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF 

RICHARD L. DONALDSON

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

799-4 Exhibit 3 p. 223, ll. 21, 23, 25 GRANTED.

799-4 Exhibit 3 p. 272, ll. 14-25 GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1066 Filed 01/02/19 Page 13 of 13