1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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.,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 793, 872, 895

Before the Court are three Administrative Motions to File Under Seal filed in connection

with the parties’ briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. ECF Nos. 793, 872, 

895. Specifically, the parties seek to seal portions of their briefs and accompanying exhibits. For 

the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ motions 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 & Cty. 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 

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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

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. 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).

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, 
3

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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

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 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). Where 

the moving party seeks to file under seal a document containing information designated 

confidential by the opposing party, “[w]ithin 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to 

File Under Seal, the [opposing party] must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-

5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1).

Here, the information sought to be sealed consists of portions of the parties’ briefing on the 

FTC’s motion for summary judgment and accompanying exhibits. The Court concludes that the 
4

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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

“compelling reasons” standard applies because the FTC’s partial summary judgment motion 

resolved a significant merits issue in the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098 

(explaining that a motion for summary judgment is “obviously” related to the merits of a case); 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (applying “compelling reasons” standard to materials attached to a 

motion for summary judgment). 

The Court now turns to the substance of the sealing motions. Both the FTC and 

Qualcomm have designated certain material as confidential at the request of Qualcomm and nonparties. ECF No. 793 at 2; ECF No. 872 at 2; ECF No. 895 at 2. Qualcomm and those nonparties, in turn, have submitted declarations providing that portions of the summary judgment 

briefing and the accompanying exhibits are sealable. ECF Nos. 848-1, 848-2, 848-3, 872-7. 880-

3, 881, 882, 883, 885, 886, 895-2, 895-3. The rationale is essentially the same—namely, that the 

information sought to be sealed reveals competitively sensitive business information. For 

example, many of the documents contain company “internal business analysis, strategy and 

decision-making,” ECF No. 848-1 ¶¶ 3–6, including information subject to non-disclosure 

agreements. ECF No. 883 ¶¶ 7–8. Other documents contain information about patent licensing 

agreements or negotiations. ECF No. 886 ¶¶ 6–7; 895-3 ¶¶ 14–24. Still others contain 

“confidential submissions to federal and international regulatory bodies.” ECF No. 880-3 ¶¶ 4–6.

One set of documents contains “complete copies of certain standards copyrighted by TIA,” a 

cellular standard-setting organization. ECF No. 881 ¶ 2. 

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

parties’ motions 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 Cir. 2008) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The Ninth Circuit has held, and 
5

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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

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 motions seek to seal information that, if published, may harm 

a party’s or a third party’s competitive standing, the Court agrees with the parties that compelling 

reasons exist to seal this information. However, not all information that the motions seek to seal is 

accompanied by a supporting declaration providing that the information is sealable. 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 motions as 

follows:

Motion 

to Seal

Document Page/Line Ruling

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

(ECF No. 792)

p.3 n.6 DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

p.4 nn.7–9 DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

5:7–9 GRANTED. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

p.5 nn.11–13 DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

6:2–8 DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

p.6 nn.14–17 GRANTED as to the final parenthetical 

in n.14, first and final parentheticals in 

n.15, and lines 6–8 of n.17, but 

otherwise DENIED. Qualcomm does 

not seek to seal the remaining 

information. ECF No. 848.
6

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document Page/Line Ruling

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

p.7 n.20 DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

8:11–15 & 

nn.27–28

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

9:1–13 & 

nn.29–30

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

10:1–11 & 

nn.31–34

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

11:2–15 & 

nn.37–40

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

12:1–14 & 

nn.41–42

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

13:1–18 & 

nn.43–45

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

14:10–17 & 

n.48

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

19:6–7 DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

21:3–4 DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 Exhibit 4 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 Exhibits 6–7 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire

Documents

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 Exhibit 8 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED. 
7

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document Page/Line Ruling

793 Exhibit 9 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED. 

793 Exhibit 10 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED as to 45:2–46:20, but 

otherwise DENIED. Qualcomm does 

not seek to seal the remaining 

information. 

793 Exhibit 11 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED as to 397:10–18 and 

398:8–399:18, but otherwise DENIED. 

Qualcomm does not seek to seal the 

remaining information. ECF No. 848. 

793 Exhibit 12 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

793 Exhibit 13 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED as to pp. 171–72, but 

otherwise DENIED. Qualcomm does 

not seek to seal the remaining 

information. ECF No. 848. 

793 Exhibit 14 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED as to 60:26–62:28, but 

otherwise DENIED. Qualcomm does 

not seek to seal the remaining 

information. ECF No. 848.

793 Exhibit 15 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED. 

793 Exhibit 16 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED as to 112:6 and 112:18–

25, but otherwise DENIED. 

Qualcomm does not seek to seal the 

remaining information. ECF No. 848.

793 Exhibit 17 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document 

GRANTED. 

793 Exhibit 18 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED as to 14:23–25, but 

otherwise DENIED. Qualcomm does 

not seek to seal the remaining 

information. ECF No. 848. 
8

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document Page/Line Ruling

793 Exhibit 19 ISO FTC’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED. 

793 Exhibits 22–29 and 32–

50 ISO FTC’s Motion 

for Partial Summary 

Judgment

(ECF No. 792-2)

Entire

Documents

DENIED. Qualcomm does not seek to 

seal this information. ECF No. 848. 

872 Qualcomm’s Opposition 

to FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

(ECF No. 870)

8:18–26 GRANTED. 

872 Qualcomm’s Opposition 

to FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

9:6–11 GRANTED. 

872 Qualcomm’s Opposition 

to FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

9:16–23 GRANTED. 

872 Qualcomm’s Opposition 

to FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

9:25–10:2 GRANTED. 

872 Qualcomm’s Opposition 

to FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

10:2–4 GRANTED. 

872 Qualcomm’s Opposition 

to FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

10:4–8 GRANTED. 

872 Qualcomm’s Opposition 

to FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

10:8–9 GRANTED. 
9

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document Page/Line Ruling

872 Qualcomm’s Opposition 

to FTC’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

21:16–19 DENIED. No declaration seeking to 

seal this third-party information has 

been filed. 

872 Exhibit 22 to Holtz 

Declaration 

(ECF No. 870-3)

pp. 17–21 GRANTED. 

872 Exhibit 23 to Holtz 

Declaration

(ECF No. 870-4)

pp. 21–27, 

72–74 

GRANTED as to 25:24–27:9, but 

otherwise DENIED. Only the 

information listed above is supported 

by a declaration confirming that the 

information reveals trade secrets. ECF 

No. 886 ¶ 6.

872 Exhibit 24 to Holtz 

Declaration

(ECF No. 870-5)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED as to 30:12-18 and 30:21-

32:13, but otherwise DENIED. Only 

the information listed above is 

supported by a declaration confirming 

that the information reveals trade 

secrets. ECF No. 885 ¶¶ 6–8. 

872 Exhibit 25 to Holtz 

Declaration

(ECF No. 870-6)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED as to 222:18–22 and 

223:6–25, but otherwise DENIED. 

Only the information listed above is 

supported by a declaration confirming 

that the information reveals trade 

secrets. ECF No. 883 ¶¶ 7–8.

872 Exhibit 26 to Holtz 

Declaration

(ECF No. 870-7)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED. 

872 Exhibit 27 to Holtz 

Declaration

(ECF No. 870-8)

pp. 43–45, 87–

88, 93–94, 

103–105 

GRANTED as to pp. 43–45, but 

otherwise DENIED. Only the 

information listed above is supported 

by a declaration confirming that the 

information reveals trade secrets. ECF 

No. 872-7 ¶¶ 3–4. 

872 Exhibit 31 to Holtz 

Declaration

(ECF No. 870-12)

Entire 

Document

DENIED. No declaration seeking to 

seal this third-party information has 

been filed.

872 Exhibit 36 to Holtz 

Declaration

(ECF No. 870-17) 

Entire 

Document

GRANTED. 
10

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document Page/Line Ruling

872 Exhibit 17 to 

Qualcomm’s Request 

for Judicial Notice

(ECF No. 871-17)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED. 

872 Exhibit 18 to 

Qualcomm’s Request 

for Judicial Notice

(ECF No. 871-18)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED. 

872 Exhibit 19 to 

Qualcomm’s Request 

for Judicial Notice

(ECF No. 871-19)

Entire 

Document

DENIED. No declaration seeking to 

seal this third-party information has 

been filed.

872 Exhibit 20 to 

Qualcomm’s Request 

for Judicial Notice

(ECF No. 871-20)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED. 

872 Exhibits 1–15 to 

Tiedemann Declaration 

(ECF No. 870-21)

Entire 

Documents

GRANTED. 

872 Exhibits 1–10 to 

Casaccia Declaration

(ECF No. 870-19)

Entire 

Documents

DENIED. Qualcomm has withdrawn 

its request to seal this information. 

ECF No. 887 ¶ 2. 

895 FTC Reply in Support 

of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 893)

4:16–18 GRANTED.

895 FTC Reply in Support 

of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

5:1–4 & 

nn.8–9 

GRANTED. 

895 FTC Reply in Support 

of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

5:4–7 & n.10 GRANTED.

895 FTC Reply in Support 

of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

5:8–12 & n.11 GRANTED.

895 FTC Reply in Support 

of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

p.6 n.16 GRANTED.
11

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document Page/Line Ruling

895 FTC Reply in Support 

of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

n.25 GRANTED.

895 FTC Reply in Support 

of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

11:7 & 

nn.26–27 

GRANTED.

895 FTC Reply in Support 

of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

11:18–12:1 GRANTED.

895 FTC Reply in Support 

of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

n.34 GRANTED.

895 Exhibit 9-12 to Milici 

Declaration 

(ECF No. 893-2)

Entire 

Documents

GRANTED. 

895 Exhibit 15 to Milici 

Declaration

(ECF No. 893-2)

Slide 13 GRANTED. 

895 Exhibits 16-20 to Milici 

Declaration

(ECF No. 893-2)

Entire

Documents

GRANTED. 

895 Exhibit 21 to Milici 

Declaration 

(ECF No. 893-2)

Entire 

Document

GRANTED. 

895 Exhibit 26 to Milici 

Declaration

(ECF No. 893-2)

Portion of 

second 

sentence of ¶ 

5.3.6 after 

“Qualcomm”

GRANTED. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge