1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THIRD PARTIES’ 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,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART THIRD PARTIES’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1072, 1084, 1089, 1090, 1094

Before the Court are motions to seal filed by the following third parties: (1) Lenovo, ECF 

No. 1072; (2) Pegatron and Wintron, ECF No. 1084; (3) Huawei, ECF No. 1089; and (4) 

Samsung, ECF No. 1090. The motions all concern evidence that Plaintiff Federal Trade 

Commission (“FTC”) and Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) plan to present at 

trial on January 4, 2019. The FTC has opposed Lenovo’s motion to seal, ECF No. 1088, and 

Huawei’s motion to seal. ECF No. 1096. Pegatron also represents that the FTC and Qualcomm 

oppose portions of Pegatron’s motion to seal, although neither party has filed an opposition. ECF 

No. 1084 at 2–3. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the 

third parties’ motions to seal. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1100 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THIRD PARTIES’ 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

“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 

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.

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

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1100 Filed 01/03/19 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THIRD PARTIES’ 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

might harm third parties’ competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, 

contract negotiations, or trade secrets, the Court agrees that compelling reasons exist to seal this 

information. However, not all of the information that the third parties seek to seal meets the 

compelling reasons standard. For example, Lenovo seeks to seal portions of the deposition 

testimony of Ira Blumberg that refer only generally to Blumberg’s “understanding” about 

Qualcomm’s past conduct related to unspecified customers even though Qualcomm and FTC do 

not seek to seal such information. See, e.g., ECF No. 1072-3, 45:1-4. 

Accordingly, with the Ninth Circuit’s sealing case law in mind, the Court rules on the 

instant motions to seal as follows: 

Motion to Seal

and Requesting 

Party

Document Page/Line Ruling

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo 

Blumberg Deposition 44:23-45:16 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 71:19-72:8 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 83:8-84:3 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 150:13-19 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 155:20-24, 

156:2-11

GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 158:21-160:15 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 161:6-21 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 169:1-171:7 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 171:20-173:7 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 173:12-176:12 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 176:16-177:3 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 178:20-179:18 GRANTED. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1100 Filed 01/03/19 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THIRD PARTIES’ 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

and Requesting 

Party

Document Page/Line Ruling

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 197:15-20, 

198:4-199:11

DENIED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 214:20-215:5 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition Portions from 

216:14-218:24

GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 253:14-254:2 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Blumberg Deposition 275:18-276:6 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Portions of License 

Agreement, Exhibit B 

to ECF No. 1072 

All requested 

portions

GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Portions of License 

Agreement, Exhibit C 

to Blumberg Dep. 

All requested 

portions

GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo 

Portions of License 

Agreement, Exhibit C 

to ECF No. 1072

All requested 

portions

GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo 

Portions of License 

Agreement, Exhibit D 

to ECF No. 1072

All requested 

portions 

GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo

Portions of License 

Agreement, Exhibit E 

to ECF No. 1072

All requested 

portions

GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1072, 

Lenovo 

Portions of License 

Agreement, Exhibit F 

to ECF No. 1072

All requested 

portions 

GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1084, 

Pegatron and 

Wistron

JX0042 All requested 

portions 

GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1084, 

Pegatron and 

Wistron

Chong Deposition 246:3, 246:5, 

246:12, 251:14, 

251:16, 251:18, 

361:5

DENIED. 

ECF No. 1084, 

Pegatron and 

Wistron

JX0053 All requested 

portions

GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1084, 

Pegatron and 

Wistron

Yang Deposition 104:6, 104:14 DENIED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 47:17-48:14 GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1100 Filed 01/03/19 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THIRD PARTIES’ 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

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 70:3-5 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 70:8-9 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 70:12-15 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 70:20-23 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 116:7-8 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 116:13-16 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 116:19-20 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 121:6-11 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 122:5-11 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 122:21-123:1 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 132:13-24 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 160:22-161:7 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 162:2-5 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 185:7-186:4 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 195:23-196:13 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 218:2-7 DENIED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

Yu Deposition 218:18-21 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

CX-1101 Pages 2-3 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

JX-022 Entire Document GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

JX-027 Entire Document GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

JX-097 Entire Document GRANTED.

ECF No. 1089, 

Huawei

JX-098 Entire Document GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1100 Filed 01/03/19 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THIRD PARTIES’ 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

ECF No. 1090, 

Samsung

Qualcomm Trial 

Evidence

All requested 

portions

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1100 Filed 01/03/19 Page 6 of 6