JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

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

THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. (SBN 132099)

tboutrous@gibsondunn.com 

JASON C. LO (SBN 219030)

jlo@gibsondunn.com

JENNIFER J. RHO (SBN 254312)

jrho@gibsondunn.com 

RYAN K. IWAHASHI (SBN 284766)

riwahashi@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

333 South Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Tel: (213) 229-7000

Fax: (213) 229-7520

Attorneys for Non-Parties Compal Electronics, Inc., 

FIH Mobile Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.,

Pegatron Corporation, and Wistron Corporation

Edward H. Takashima

etakashima@bsfllp.com

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Phone: 310-752-2400 / Fax: 310-752-2490

Attorney for Non-Party Apple Inc.

[Additional counsel identified on signature page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

 Plaintiff, v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

a Delaware corporation,

 Defendant

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

JOINT STIPULATED 

SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE 

ORDER GOVERNING 

CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL

Magistrate Judge: 

Hon. Nathaniel M. Cousins

IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

Case No. 17-md-02773-LHK-NMC 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 1 of 34
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 1

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

Non-Parties Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Compal Electronics, Inc. (“Compal”), Hon 

Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (“Hon Hai”), FIH Mobile Ltd. (“FIH”), Pegatron 

Corporation (“Pegatron”), and Wistron Corporation (“Wistron”) (collectively, “SD 

Cal Parties”), with Plaintiffs Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and MDL 

Plaintiffs and Defendant Qualcomm Inc. (“Qualcomm”),

1 through their counsel of 

record, stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, the Court entered Protective Orders Governing Confidential 

Material in the above-captioned cases (“ND Cal Actions”) on May 1, 2017 (ECF 

No. 81 in Case No. 17-cv-00220) and May 29, 2017 (ECF No. 46 in Case No. 17-

md-02773)

WHEREAS, The Parties to the ND Cal Actions have served subpoenas for 

documents and testimony on each of the SD Cal Parties in the ND Cal Actions; 

WHEREAS, Section 10.1 of each Protective Order states that its provisions 

should not be construed as prohibiting a Non-Party from seeking additional 

protections for its confidential materials;

WHEREAS, the SD Cal Parties and Qualcomm are engaged in separate 

litigation, In Re: Qualcomm Litigation, No. 17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal) (“SD 

Cal Action”), which involves the production of confidential materials by the SD Cal 

Parties that may also be produced in the ND Cal Actions;

WHEREAS, the SD Cal Parties and Qualcomm have agreed to the terms of a 

protective order in the ND Cal Actions that establishes certain terms and limitations 

governing the protection of and access to confidential information thereby disclosed;

WHEREAS, to facilitate proper coordination between the ND Cal Actions

and the SD Cal Action, and ensure the confidentiality of relevant materials, this 

stipulated supplemental protective order (the “Supplemental Protective Order”) is 

 1 Unless otherwise stated, capitalized terms in this Order refer to the defined terms in 

the Protective Orders.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 2 of 34
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 2

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

intended to provide that certain enhanced protections for SD Cal Parties’ materials 

agreed upon between the SD Cal Parties and Qualcomm in the SD Cal Action shall 

also apply to the ND Cal Actions;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, that 

the terms of the Protective Orders apply to “SD Cal MATERIAL” (defined below), 

except as modified herein.

This Supplemental Protective Order incorporates by reference all provisions 

of the existing Protective Orders, to the extent not expressly referenced herein, 

except where there is a conflict between the terms of this Supplemental Protective 

Order and the existing Protective Orders, in which case this Supplemental Protective 

Order shall govern.

A. Supplemental Protective Order Definitions

1. “SD CAL MATERIAL” refers to Disclosure and Discovery Materials 

produced by the SD Cal Parties or obtained from the SD Cal Parties or their 

witnesses in the ND Cal Actions.

2. “SD CAL CONFIDENTIAL” information or items: refers to 

information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 

things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). For 

the avoidance of doubt, “SD CAL CONFIDENTIAL” information shall include all 

documents and things that are designated as “APPLE CONFIDENTIAL,” 

“CONFIDENTIAL – CO,” “COMPAL CONFIDENTIAL,” “FOXCONN 

CONFIDENTIAL,” “PEGATRON CONFIDENTIAL,” or “WISTRON 

CONFIDENTIAL.” Such information may be so designated if it contains or reflects 

confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive information.

3. “SD CAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY” Information or Items: refers to any SD CAL MATERIAL that satisfy the 

requirements of HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 3 of 34
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 3

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

Information or Items in Section 2.9 of the Protective Order. Furthermore, the 

following information, if non-public, shall be presumed to merit the “SD CAL 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation: trade 

secrets, pricing information, financial data, sales or marketing forecasts or plans, 

business plans, sales or marketing strategy, product development information, 

engineering documents, testing documents, employee information, and other nonpublic information of similar competitive and business sensitivity. For the 

avoidance of doubt, “SD CAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY” information shall include all documents and things that are designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – OCO,” “APPLE 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” “COMPAL 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” “FOXCONN 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” “PEGATRON 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” or “WISTRON 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”

4. “SD CAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE” Information or Items: extremely sensitive 

“Confidential Information or Items” that include Source Code (as defined below) or 

Chip-Level Schematics (as defined below), disclosure of which to another Party or 

Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious competitive harm that could not 

be avoided by less restrictive means. Nothing in this Supplemental Protective Order 

shall be construed as a representation or admission that Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics are properly discoverable in these Actions, or to obligate any Party or 

Non-Party to produce any Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics. For the 

avoidance of doubt, “SD CAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY – SOURCE CODE” information shall include all documents and things that 

are designated as “APPLE HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 4 of 34
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 4

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE,” “COMPAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE,” “FOXCONN 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE 

CODE,” “PEGATRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE,” or “WISTRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE.”

5. “SD CAL PROTECTED MATERIAL” includes: Any Disclosure or 

Discovery Material that is designated as “APPLE CONFIDENTIAL,”

“CONFIDENTIAL – CO,” “COMPAL CONFIDENTIAL,” “FOXCONN 

CONFIDENTIAL,” “PEGATRON CONFIDENTIAL,” or “WISTRON 

CONFIDENTIAL,” “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

OCO,” “APPLE HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,”

“COMPAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” 

“FOXCONN HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” 

“PEGATRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” or 

“WISTRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” or as 

“APPLE HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE,” “COMPAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE,” “FOXCONN HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE,” 

“PEGATRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY – SOURCE CODE,” or “WISTRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE.”

6. “Chip-Level Schematics” include electronic drawings and symbolic 

representations that describe or depict digital or analog electrical or electronic 

circuits within integrated circuit chips.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 5 of 34
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 5

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

7. “Source Code” includes: human-readable programming language text 

that defines software, firmware, (collectively, “software Source Code”) and 

integrated circuits (“hardware Source Code”). Text files containing Source Code 

shall hereinafter be referred to as “Source Code files.” Software Source Code files 

shall include, but are not limited to, files containing Source Code in “C,” “C++,” 

BREW, Java ME, J2ME, assembler, digital signal processor (DSP) programming 

languages, and other human readable text programming languages. Software Source 

Code files further include “.include files,” “make” files, “link” files, and other 

human-readable text files used in the generation and/or building of software directly 

executed on a microprocessor, micro-controller, or DSP. Hardware Source Code 

files include, but are not limited to, files containing Source Code in VDHL, Verilog, 

and other Hardware Description Language (“HDL”) formats, including but not 

limited to, Register Transfer Level (“RTL”) descriptions.

B. Designation of Protected Material

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5 of the Protective Order, the 

SD Cal Parties shall designate their CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items as

follows: Apple shall designate its CONFIDENTIAL Information as “APPLE 

CONFIDENTIAL,” its HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 

Information or Items as “APPLE HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY,” and its HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 

–SOURCE CODE as “APPLE HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY – SOURCE CODE”; Compal shall designate its CONFIDENTIAL 

Information as “CONFIDENTIAL – CO” or “COMPAL CONFIDENTIAL,” its 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY Information or Items 

as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – OCO” or 

“COMPAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” and its 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE as 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 6 of 34
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 6

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

“COMPAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE”; Hon Hai and FIH shall designate their CONFIDENTIAL 

Information as “CONFIDENTIAL – CO” or “FOXCONN CONFIDENTIAL,” its 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY Information or Items 

as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – OCO” or 

“FOXCONN HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” and its 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE as 

“FOXCONN HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE”; Pegatron shall designate its CONFIDENTIAL Information as 

“CONFIDENTIAL – CO” or “PEGATRON CONFIDENTIAL,” its HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY Information or Items as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – OCO” or 

“PEGATRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” and 

its HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE 

as “PEGATRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE”; Wistron shall designate its CONFIDENTIAL Information as 

“CONFIDENTIAL – CO” or “WISTRON CONFIDENTIAL,” its HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY Information or Items as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – OCO” or 

“WISTRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” and its 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE as 

“WISTRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE”. Otherwise, all provisions governing the manner and timing of 

the designation of PROTECTED MATERIAL apply to such designations otherwise 

referenced in this paragraph.

For testimony given in a deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings by 

the SD Cal Parties, the SD Cal Parties must identify, either verbally on the record or 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 7 of 34
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 7

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

in a writing served on all Parties and the court reporter within 14 days after the close 

of the deposition, hearing, or other proceeding, all protected testimony and specify 

the level of protection being asserted. Only those portions of the testimony that are 

appropriately designated for protection shall be covered by the provisions of this 

Supplemental Protective Order. If no indication on the record is made, all 

information disclosed during a deposition shall be deemed “SD CAL HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” in its entirety unless otherwise 

agreed, until the time within which it may be appropriately designated as provided 

for herein has passed. Any Party that wishes to disclose the transcript that has been 

deemed “SD CAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” as 

a result of no designation having been made on the record at the time the testimony 

was given, or information contained therein, may provide written notice of its intent 

to treat the transcript as non-confidential, after which time, the SD Cal Parties or any 

Party that wants to maintain any portion of the transcript as confidential must 

designate the confidential portions within fourteen (14) days, or else the transcript 

may be treated as non-confidential. Pages of transcribed deposition testimony or 

exhibits to depositions that reveal SD CAL PROTECTED MATERIAL must be 

separately bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as 

permitted under this Supplemental Protective Order.

C. Access to and Use of SD Cal Protected Material

9. Basic Principles. All SD CAL MATERIAL shall be used solely for the 

ND Cal Actions, the SD Cal Action, or any related appellate proceeding for the 

preceding matters, and not for any other purpose whatsoever, including without 

limitation any other litigation, administrative proceeding, investigation (including by

the International Trade Commission), patent prosecution or acquisition, patent 

reexamination or reissue proceedings, or any business or competitive purpose or 

function. SD CAL PROTECTED MATERIAL shall not be distributed, disclosed or 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 8 of 34
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 8

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

made available to anyone except as expressly provided in this Supplemental 

Protective Order or another Order of this Court. When the litigation has been 

terminated, a Receiving Party must comply with the relevant provisions of the 

Protective Order. Nothing herein shall prevent the Parties and the SD Cal Parties

from entering into an agreement for the cross-use and/or coordination of discovery 

materials in these Actions and any other action.

10. Patent Prosecution Bar. Absent the written consent of the SD Cal 

Parties, any person who receives access to “SD CAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE” information shall not be 

involved, directly or indirectly, in any of the following activities: (i) advising on, 

consulting on, preparing, prosecuting, drafting, editing, and/or amending of patent 

applications, specifications, claims, and/or responses to office actions, or otherwise 

affecting the scope of claims in patents or patent applications relating to the 

functionality, operation, and design of cellular baseband chipsets, cellular 

technology, cellular products or cellular subscriber services (generally or as 

described in any patent in suit), before any foreign or domestic agency, including the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office; and (ii) the acquisition of patents 

(including patent applications), or the rights to any such patents or patent 

applications with the right to sublicense, relating to the functionality, operation, and 

design of cellular baseband chipsets, cellular technology, cellular products or 

cellular subscriber services. These prohibitions are not intended to and shall not 

(i) preclude Counsel from participating in proceedings on behalf of a Party 

challenging the validity of any patent or on behalf of a Party responding to a 

challenge to the validity of a patent, or (ii) preclude Counsel from participating 

directly or indirectly in reexamination, inter partes review, covered business method 

review, or reissue proceedings on behalf of a patentee. These prohibitions shall 

begin when the affected individual first receives access to “SD CAL HIGHLY 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 9 of 34
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 9

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE” materials 

until two (2) years after the date the affected individual ceases to have access to the 

materials.

11. Development Bar. Absent the SD Cal Parties’ written consent, any 

Outside Counsel of Record or Expert who receives access to “SD CAL HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE” information 

shall not be involved in performing hardware or software development work or 

product development work directly or indirectly intended for commercial purposes 

relating to the functionality, operation, and design of cellular baseband chipsets, 

cellular technology, cellular products or cellular subscriber services, which is not 

publicly known. These prohibitions shall begin when the affected individual first 

has access to “SD CAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY – SOURCE CODE” materials until two (2) years after the date the affected 

individual ceases to have access to the materials.

12. Notwithstanding this Protective Order, the FTC may, subject to taking 

appropriate steps to preserve confidentiality, disclose and use SD CAL

PROTECTED MATERIAL in responding to either: (a) a formal request from either 

House of Congress or from any committee or subcommittee of Congress, consistent 

with applicable law, including Sections 6(f) and 21 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 

46(f) and 57b-2; or (b) a federal or state access request pursuant to Commission 

Rules 4.11(c) and (d), 16 C.F.R. § 4.11(c) and (d). In such instances, the FTC shall 

provide the Designating Party with fourteen (14) days prior written notice unless the 

applicable statute or regulation prohibits providing such notice, in which case the 

FTC shall comply with the applicable statute or regulation.

13. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing by the 

Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any information or item 

designated “APPLE CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL – CO,” “COMPAL 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 10 of 34
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 10

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

CONFIDENTIAL,” “FOXCONN CONFIDENTIAL,” “PEGATRON 

CONFIDENTIAL,” or “WISTRON CONFIDENTIAL” by the SD Cal Parties only 

to:

(a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record in an ND Cal

Action, as well as employees of said Outside Counsel of Record, and any 

copying or clerical litigation support services working at the direction of such 

Outside Counsel of Record or employees thereof (1) who do not provide 

commercial advice (as opposed to legal advice) to the Receiving Party and (2) 

to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this 

litigation;

(b) five (5) or fewer House Counsel identified and agreed upon 

between the SD Cal Parties and the Receiving Party prior to any disclosure, 

(1) to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation, (2) who are 

not involved in competitive decision-making (as opposed to legal advice), as 

defined by U.S. Steel v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 

1984), on behalf of a Party or a competitor of a Party, and (3) who have 

signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A), as 

well as their support staff to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary, 

provided that such support staff are not involved in competitive decisionmaking and have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” 

(Exhibit A);

(c) Experts (as defined in the Protective Order) retained by the 

Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation 

provided that (1) such Expert has signed the “Acknowledgment and 

Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); (2) such Expert has no involvement in 

competitive decision-making (as defined by U.S. Steel v. United States, 730 

F.2d 1465, 1468 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1984)) for the Receiving Party; and (3) no 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 11 of 34
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 11

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

unresolved objections to such disclosure exist after proper notice has been 

given as set forth in Section D of this document;

(d) professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, and 

Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this 

litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be 

Bound” (Exhibit A);

(e) the Court and its personnel;

(f) court reporters and their staff to whom disclosure is reasonably 

necessary for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and 

Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);

(g) during their testimony or in preparation for their testimony, 

witnesses in an ND Cal Action and their counsel to whom disclosure is 

reasonably necessary and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and 

Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A), unless otherwise agreed by the 

Designating Party or ordered by the court. Such disclosure may only occur for

the purpose of assisting the preparation or examination of the witness;

(h) the Designating Party or its employees, the author or recipient of 

a document containing the information, or a custodian or other person who 

otherwise possessed or knew the information; 

(i) any mediator who is assigned to hear this Action, and his or her 

staff, subject to the agreement to maintain confidentiality to the same degree 

as required by this Supplemental Protective Order; 

(j) any other person with the prior written consent of the 

Designating Party; and

(k) FTC Commissioners and FTC counsel who have appeared in an 

ND Cal Action, as well as other Commission employees to whom it is 

reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this litigation.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 12 of 34
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 12

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

14. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing by the 

Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any information or item 

designated “APPLE HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – OCO,” “COMPAL 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” “FOXCONN 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” “PEGATRON 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” or “WISTRON 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” only to:

(a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record in an ND Cal

Action, as well as employees of said Outside Counsel of Record, and any 

copying or clerical litigation support services working at the direction of such 

Outside Counsel of Record or employees thereof (1) who are not involved in 

competitive decision-making, as defined by U.S. Steel v. United States, 730 

F.2d 1465, 1468 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1984), (as opposed to legal advice) on behalf of 

a Party or a competitor of a Party, and (2) to whom it is reasonably necessary 

to disclose the information for this litigation;

(b) Experts (as defined in the Protective Order) of the Receiving 

Party, retained to assist in these Actions, provided that disclosure is only to 

the extent necessary to perform such work; and provided that: (1) such Expert 

has agreed to be bound by the provisions of the Protective Order by signing a 

copy of “Acknowledgement and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); (2) 

such Expert is not involved in competitive decision-making, as defined by 

U.S. Steel v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1984), on 

behalf of a Party or a competitor of a Party; and (3) no unresolved objections 

to such disclosure exist after proper notice has been given as set forth in 

Section D of this document;

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 13 of 34
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 13

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

(c) professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, and 

Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this 

litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be 

Bound” (Exhibit A); 

(d) the Court and its personnel;

(e) court reporters and their staff to whom disclosure is reasonably 

necessary for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and 

Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);

(f) the Designating Party or its employees, the author or recipient of 

a document containing the information or a custodian or other person who 

otherwise possessed or knew the information; 

(g) any mediator who is assigned to hear an ND Cal Action, and his 

or her staff, subject to the agreement to maintain confidentiality to the same 

degree as required by this Supplemental Protective Order; 

(h) any other person with the prior written consent of the 

Designating Party; and

(i) FTC Commissioners and FTC counsel who have appeared in an 

ND Cal Action, as well as other Commission employees to whom it is 

reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this litigation.

15. To the extent production of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics 

becomes necessary to the prosecution or defense of the case, the SD Cal Parties may 

designate Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics as “APPLE HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE,” 

“COMPAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 

- SOURCE CODE,” “FOXCONN HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE,” “PEGATRON HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE,” 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 14 of 34
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 14

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

or “WISTRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY - SOURCE CODE” if it comprises or includes confidential, proprietary, 

and/or trade secret Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics. Nothing in this 

Supplemental Protective Order shall be construed as a representation or admission 

that Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics are properly discoverable in these 

Actions, or to obligate any Party to produce any Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing by the SD 

Cal Parties, Discovery Material designated as “APPLE HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 

– OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE,” “COMPAL 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE 

CODE,” “FOXCONN HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE,” “PEGATRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE,” or “WISTRON 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE 

CODE” shall be subject to the provisions set forth in Section E below, and may be 

disclosed, subject to Section E below, solely to:

(a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record in an ND Cal

Action, as well as such Outside Counsel of Record’s immediate paralegals and 

staff and any copying or clerical litigation support services working at the 

direction of such counsel, paralegals, and staff (1) who is not involved in 

competitive decision-making, as defined by U.S. Steel v. United States, 730 

F.2d 1465, 1468 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1984), (as opposed to legal advice) on behalf of 

a Party or a competitor of a Party and (2) to whom it is reasonably necessary 

to disclose the information for this litigation; 

(b) Experts (as defined in the Protective Order) of the Receiving 

Party, retained to assist in these Actions, provided that disclosure is only to 

the extent necessary to perform such work and provided that: (1) such Expert 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 15 of 34
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 15

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

has agreed to be bound by the provisions of the Protective Order by signing a 

copy of “Acknowledgement and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); (2) 

such Expert is not involved in competitive decision-making, as defined by 

U.S. Steel v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1984), on 

behalf of a Party or a competitor of a Party; and (3) no unresolved objections 

to such disclosure exist after proper notice has been given to the SD Cal 

Parties and all Parties as set forth in Section D of this document;

(c) Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary 

for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement 

to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 

(d) the Court and its personnel; 

(e) court reporters and their staff who have signed the 

“Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A), with the 

exception that printouts of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics used as 

exhibits in a deposition shall not be provided to the court reporter or their staff 

pursuant to Section E below; 

(f) any mediator who is assigned to hear this matter, and his or her 

staff, subject to their agreement to maintain confidentiality to the same degree 

as required by the Protective Order; 

(g) any other person with the prior written consent of the 

Designating Party; and

(h) FTC Commissioners and FTC counsel who have appeared in an 

ND Cal action, as well as other Commission employees to whom it is 

reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this litigation

D. Access by Experts

16. Unless otherwise ordered by the court or agreed to in writing by the SD 

Cal Parties, prior to disclosing any SD CAL PROTECTED MATERIAL to any 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 16 of 34
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 16

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

expert, the party seeking to disclose such SD CAL PROTECTED MATERIAL first 

must make a written request to the SD Cal Parties that:

(a) for any Expert, includes (i) an up-to-date curriculum vitae of the 

Person (including the Person’s name and business/professional title and 

business address); (ii) any previous or current relationship (personal or 

professional) with any of the Parties to these Actions, including direct 

relationships and relationships through entities owned or controlled by the 

Person, including but not limited to an identification of any individual or 

entity with or for whom the Person is employed or to whom the person 

provides consulting services relating to the design, development, operation, or 

patenting of cellular baseband chipsets, cellular technology, cellular products 

or cellular subscriber services, or relating to the acquisition of intellectual 

property assets relating to cellular baseband chipsets, cellular technology, 

cellular products or cellular subscriber services; (iii) a list of other cases in 

which the Person has testified (at trial or deposition) within the last five (5) 

years; (iv) a list of all companies by which the Person has been employed 

within the last four (4) years, the dates of the employment, and a brief 

description of the subject matter of the employment; and (v) an identification 

of all pending patent applications on which the Person is named as an 

inventor, in which the Person has any ownership interest, or as to which the 

Person has had or anticipates in the future any involvement in advising on, 

consulting on, preparing, prosecuting, drafting, editing, amending, or 

otherwise affecting the scope of the claims;

(b) for any Expert retained to testify about, consult regarding, or 

otherwise analyze issues relating to patent invalidity or validity, infringement 

or non-infringement, or patent exhaustion or non-exhaustion, includes a list of 

all companies with which the Person has consulted within the last four (4) 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 17 of 34
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 17

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

years, the dates of the consultancy, and a brief description of the subject 

matter of the consultancy;2

17. A Party that makes a request and provides the information specified in 

this Section D may disclose the subject SD CAL PROTECTED MATERIAL to the 

identified Person unless, within seven (7) days of delivering the request and 

providing all the information required to be disclosed by this section, the Party 

receives a written objection from the SD Cal Parties. Any such objection must be in 

writing and set forth good cause for the objection. For purposes of this section, 

“good cause” shall include an objectively reasonable concern that the Person will, 

advertently or inadvertently, use or disclose SD CAL PROTECTED MATERIALS

in a way or ways that are inconsistent with the provisions contained in this 

Supplemental Protective Order. In the absence of an objection at the end of the 

seven (7) day period, the Person shall be deemed approved under this Supplemental 

Protective Order. There shall be no disclosure of SD CAL PROTECTED 

MATERIAL to the Person prior to expiration of this seven (7) day period.

18. A Party that receives a timely written objection must meet and confer 

with the Designating Party (through direct voice-to-voice dialogue; other forms of 

communication are not sufficient) to try to resolve the matter by agreement within 

seven (7) days of the written objection. If no agreement is reached, the Party 

seeking to make the disclosure to the Person may submit a joint discovery dispute 

pursuant to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins’s Civil Standing Order seeking 

permission from the Court to do so. Any such motion must describe the 

circumstances with specificity, set forth in detail the reasons why the disclosure to 

 

2 The SD Cal Parties and Qualcomm each agree to keep the Receiving Party’s 

written request, and all Information disclosed therein, Confidential and will not 

disclose that Information to any other individual or entity, including any Party.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 18 of 34
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 18

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

the Person is reasonably necessary, assess the risk of harm that the disclosure would 

entail, and suggest any additional means that could be used to reduce that risk. In 

addition, any such motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration 

describing the Parties’ efforts to resolve the matter by agreement (i.e., the extent and 

the content of the meet and confer discussions) and setting forth the reasons 

advanced by the Designating Party for its refusal to approve the disclosure. If no 

agreement is reached, no SD CAL PROTECTED MATERIAL shall be disclosed to 

the Person unless or until the Court grants the Receiving Party permission to do so.

19. In any such proceeding, the Designating Party shall bear the 

burden of proving that the risk of harm that the disclosure would entail (under the 

safeguards proposed) outweighs the Receiving Party’s need to disclose the Protected 

Material to the Person.

E. Source Code

20. Any Source Code files or Chip-Level Schematics that are produced by 

the SD Cal Parties will be made available for inspection at the Silicon Valley office 

of Apple’s outside counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C., at the Palo Alto office of 

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, the outside counsel of Compal, Hon Hai, FIH, 

Pegatron, and Wistron, or any other location mutually agreed by the Parties. Source 

Code or Chip-Level Schematics will be made available for inspection between the 

hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on business days (i.e., weekdays that are not Federal 

holidays), although the Parties and the SD Cal Parties will be reasonable in 

accommodating reasonable requests to conduct inspections at other times.

21. Prior to the first inspection of any requested Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics, the Receiving Party shall provide thirty (30) days’ notice of the Source 

Code or Chip-Level Schematics that it wishes to inspect. The Receiving Party shall 

provide fourteen (14) days’ notice prior to any additional inspections.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 19 of 34
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 19

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

22. Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics that are designated “APPLE 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE 

CODE,” “COMPAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE,” “FOXCONN HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE,” “PEGATRON 

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE 

CODE,” or “WISTRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE” shall be produced for inspection and review 

subject to the following provisions, unless otherwise agreed by the SD Cal Parties:

(a) All Source Code and Chip-Level Schematics shall be made 

available by the SD Cal Parties to the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel 

and/or experts in a secure room on a secured computer in a configuration 

deemed secure by the SD Cal Parties, as necessary and appropriate to prevent 

and protect against any unauthorized copying, transmission, removal or other 

transfer of any Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics outside or away from 

the computer on which the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics are 

provided for inspection (the “Source Code Computer” in the “Source Code 

Review Room”). The SD Cal Parties shall install tools that are sufficient for 

viewing and searching the Source Code and Chip-Level Schematics produced, 

on the platform produced, if such tools exist and are presently used in the 

ordinary course of the SD Cal Parties’ business. The Receiving Party’s 

Outside Counsel and/or experts or consultants may request that commercially 

available software tools for viewing and searching Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics be installed on the secured computer, provided, however, that (a) 

the Receiving Party possesses an appropriate license to such software tools; 

(b) the SD Cal Parties approves such software tools, which approval shall not 

be unreasonably withheld; and (c) such other software tools are reasonably 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 20 of 34
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 20

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

necessary for the Receiving Party to perform its review of the Source Code or 

Chip-Level Schematics consistent with all of the protections herein. The 

Receiving Party must provide the SD Cal Parties with a CD or DVD 

containing such licensed software tool(s) at least twenty-one (21) days in 

advance of the date upon which the Receiving Party wishes to have the 

additional software tools available for use on the Source Code Computer.

(b) No recordable media or recordable devices, including without 

limitation sound recorders, computers, tablets, cellular telephones, peripheral 

equipment, cameras, CDs, DVDs, or drives of any kind, shall be permitted 

into the Source Code Review Room.

(c) The Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel and/or experts or 

consultants shall be entitled to take notes relating to the Source Code or ChipLevel Schematics but may not copy the Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics into the notes and may not take such notes electronically on the 

Source Code Computer itself or any other computer. Each page of any such 

notes containing Source Code information or Chip-Level Schematics (and any 

additional notes, analyses, or descriptions relating thereto) must be marked as 

“SD CAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE.”

(d) The SD Cal Parties may visually monitor the activities of the 

Receiving Party's representatives during any Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics review, but only to ensure that no unauthorized electronic records 

of the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics and no information concerning 

the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics are being created or transmitted in 

any way.

(e) Access to and review of the Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics shall be strictly for the purposes of investigating the claims and 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 21 of 34
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 21

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

defenses at issue in these Actions. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties in 

writing, no person shall review or analyze any Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics for purposes unrelated to these Actions, and no person may use 

any knowledge gained as a result of reviewing the Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics in these Actions in any other pending or future dispute, 

proceeding or litigation.

(f) No copies of all or any portion of the Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics may leave the Source Code Review Room except as otherwise 

provided herein. Further, no other written or electronic record of the Source 

Code or Chip-Level Schematics is permitted except as otherwise provided 

herein. The Source Code Computer shall be equipped to allow printing of the 

Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics made available for inspection by the 

SD Cal Parties. Copies of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics shall only 

be made on watermarked pre-Bates numbered paper, which shall be provided 

by the SD Cal Parties. Under no circumstances are original printouts of the 

Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics to be made except for directly onto 

the watermarked and numbered sides of the paper provided by the SD Cal 

Parties. Printouts may be made only when necessary to prepare court filings 

or pleadings, to prepare a testifying expert’s expert report, or for use in a 

deposition, and for no other purpose (such as to review at a later time 

elsewhere). Counsel for the SD Cal Parties will keep the original printouts, 

and shall provide copies of such original printouts to counsel for the 

Receiving Party within four (4) business days of (1) any request by the 

Receiving Party, or (2) otherwise being notified that such original printouts 

have been made or designated. Counsel of Record may request up to 5 copies 

of each original printout. All printed Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics 

shall be logged by Receiving Party’s Counsel of Record and/or other 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 22 of 34
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 22

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

personnel of a Receiving Party in these Actions. No additional electronic 

copies of the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics shall be provided by the 

SD Cal Parties. Any printed portion that consists of more than twenty-five 

(25) pages of a continuous block of Source Code shall be presumed to be 

excessive, and the burden shall be on the Receiving Party to demonstrate the 

need for such a printed copy. The Receiving Party may print out no more than 

5% or two hundred (200) pages of the total Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics, whichever is greater. If the Receiving Party deems it necessary to 

print more than 5% or two hundred (200) pages of the total Source Code or 

Chip-Level Schematics, whichever is greater, or more than twenty-five (25) 

pages of a continuous block of Source Code, the Receiving Party and the SD 

Cal Parties shall meet and confer to determine the appropriate amount of 

additional pages to be printed. If, after meeting and conferring, the SD Cal 

Parties and the Receiving Party cannot come to an agreement, the Receiving 

Party shall be entitled to seek a Court resolution of whether the requested 

additional pages of printed Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics are 

narrowly tailored for a permitted purpose. The burden shall be on the 

Receiving Party to demonstrate that the requested additional pages are no 

more than is reasonably necessary for a permitted purpose and not merely 

printed for the purposes of review and analysis elsewhere. The Receiving 

Party shall not print Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics in order to review 

blocks of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics elsewhere in the first 

instance, i.e., as an alternative to reviewing that Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics electronically on the Source Code Computer, as the Parties 

acknowledge and agree that the purpose of the protections herein would be 

frustrated by printing portions of code for review and analysis elsewhere, and 

that printing is permitted only when necessary to prepare court filings or 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 23 of 34
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 23

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

pleadings (pursuant to 8.3(m)), to prepare a testifying expert’s expert report, 

or for use in a deposition (pursuant to 8.3(l)). The printed pages shall 

constitute part of the Source Code and Chip-Level Schematics produced by 

the SD Cal Parties in these Actions.

(g) All persons who will review the SD Cal Parties’ Source Code or 

Chip-Level Schematics on behalf of a Receiving Party, including a Receiving 

Party’s outside Counsel, shall be identified in writing to the SD Cal Parties at 

least five (5) days in advance of the first time that such person reviews such 

Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics. Such identification shall be in 

addition to any other disclosure required under this Supplemental Protective 

Order. All persons viewing the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics shall 

sign on each day they view Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics a log that 

will include the names of persons who enter the locked room to view the 

Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics and when they enter and depart. The 

SD Cal Parties shall be entitled to a copy of the log upon one (1) days’ 

advance notice to the Receiving Party.

(h) Unless otherwise agreed in advance by the Parties in writing, 

following each day on which inspection is done under this Supplemental 

Protective Order, the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel and/or experts shall 

remove all notes, documents, and all other materials from the Source Code 

Review Room. The SD Cal Parties shall not be responsible for any items left 

in the room following each inspection session, and the Receiving Party shall 

have no expectation of confidentiality for any items left in the room following 

each inspection session without a prior agreement to that effect. Proper 

identification of all authorized persons shall be provided prior to any access to 

the Source Code Review Room or the Source Code Computer. Proper 

identification requires showing, at a minimum, a photo identification card 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 24 of 34
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 24

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

sanctioned by the government of any State of the United States, by the 

government of the United States, or by the nation state of the authorized 

person’s current citizenship. Access to the secure room or the Source Code 

Computer may be denied, at the discretion of the supplier, to any individual 

who fails to provide proper identification. 

(i) Other than as provided above, the Receiving Party will not copy, 

remove, or otherwise transfer any Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics 

from the Source Code Computer including, without limitation, copying, 

removing, or transferring the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics onto any 

recordable media or recordable device. The Receiving Party will not transmit 

any Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics in any way from the SD Cal 

Parties’ facilities hosting the Source Code Computer.

(j) The Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel may not make paper 

copies of any portions of the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics received 

from the SD Cal Parties pursuant to Section 8.3(f), except for copies attached 

to court filings pursuant to 8.3(m) (up to five (5) copies), expert reports (up to 

five (5) copies), or used at depositions (up to five (5) copies), pursuant to 

Section 8.3(l), and shall maintain a log of all paper copies of the Source Code 

or Chip-Level Schematics. The log shall include the names of the reviewers 

and/or recipients of paper copies and locations where the paper copies are 

stored. Upon one (1) day’s advance notice to the Receiving Party by the SD 

Cal Parties, the Receiving Party shall provide a copy of this log to the SD Cal 

Parties. 

(k) The Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel and any person receiving 

a copy of any Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics shall maintain and store 

any paper copies of the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics or any notes, 

analyses, or descriptions of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics at their 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 25 of 34
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 25

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

offices in a manner that prevents duplication of or unauthorized access to the 

Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics, including, without limitation, storing 

the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics or any notes, analyses, or 

descriptions of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics in a locked room or 

cabinet at all times when it is not in use. No more than a total of ten (10) 

individuals identified by the Receiving Party shall have access to the printed 

portions of the SD Cal Parties’ Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics 

(except insofar as such code appears in any court filing or expert report).

(l) For depositions, the Receiving Party may bring printed copies of 

specific portions of the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics it wishes to 

use at the deposition for the witness and Outside Counsel for the parties. 

Copies of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics that are marked as 

deposition exhibits shall not be provided to the court reporter or attached to 

deposition transcripts; rather, the deposition record will identify the exhibit by 

its production numbers. All paper copies of Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics brought to the deposition shall remain with the SD Cal Parties’ 

Outside Counsel following the deposition for secure destruction in a timely 

manner.

(m) Except as provided in this sub-paragraph, absent express written 

permission from the SD Cal Parties, the Receiving Party may not create 

electronic images, or any other images, or make electronic copies, of the 

Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics from any paper copy of Source Code 

or Chip-Level Schematics for use in any manner (including by way of 

example only, the Receiving Party may not scan the Source Code or ChipLevel Schematics to a PDF, photograph the Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics, or scan the Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics using optical 

character recognition (“OCR”)). Subject to the foregoing exceptions, images 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 26 of 34
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 26

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

or copies of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics shall not be included in 

correspondence between the Parties (references to production numbers shall 

be used instead), and shall be omitted from pleadings and other papers 

whenever possible. If a Party reasonably believes that it needs to submit a 

portion of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics as part of a filing with the 

Court, then the Parties shall meet and confer as to how to make such a filing 

while protecting the confidentiality of the Source Code or Chip-Level 

Schematics and such Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics will not be filed 

absent agreement from the SD Cal Parties that the confidentiality protections 

will be adequate. If the SD Cal Parties agree to produce an electronic copy of 

all or any portion of its Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics or to provide 

written permission to the Receiving Party that an electronic or any other copy 

needs to be made for a Court filing, access to the Receiving Party’s 

submission, communication, and/or disclosure of electronic files or other 

materials containing any portion of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics 

(paper or electronic) shall at all times be limited solely to individuals who are 

expressly authorized to view Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics under 

the provisions of this Supplemental Protective Order. Where the SD Cal 

Parties have provided the express written permission required under this 

provision for a Receiving Party to create electronic copies of Source Code or 

Chip-Level Schematics, the Receiving Party shall maintain a log of all such 

electronic copies of any portion of Source Code or Chip-Level Schematics in 

its possession or in the possession of its retained consultants, including the 

names of the reviewers and/or recipients of any such electronic copies, and the 

locations and manner in which the electronic copies are stored. Additionally, 

any such electronic copies must be labeled “APPLE HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 27 of 34
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 27

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

CODE,” “COMPAL HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE,” “FOXCONN HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE 

CODE,” “PEGATRON HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE,” or “WISTRON HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE 

CODE” as provided for in this Supplemental Protective Order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD

Dated: January 4, 2018

By: /s/ Edward H. Takashima 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

William A. Isaacson (Pro Hac Vice) 

(DC Bar No. 414788)

wisaacson@bsfllp.com

Karen L. Dunn (Pro Hac Vice) (DC 

Bar No. 1002520)

kdunn@bsfllp.com

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 237-2727

Facsimile: (202) 237-6131

Edward H. Takashima

etakashima@bsfllp.com

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Telephone: (310) 752-2400

Facsimile: (310) 752-2490

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

Juanita R. Brooks (SBN 75934) 

brooks@fr.com

Seth M. Sproul (SBN 217711) 

sproul@fr.com

12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 

92130

Telephone: (619) 678-5070

Facsimile: (619) 678-5099

Ruffin B. Cordell (Pro Hac Vice) (DC 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 28 of 34
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 28

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

Bar No. 445801)

cordell@fr.com

Lauren A. Degnan (Pro Hac Vice) (DC 

Bar No. 452421)

degnan@fr.com

1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 783-5070

Facsimile: (202) 783-2331

Attorneys for Non-Party Apple Inc. 

By: /s/ Jennifer J. Rho 

THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. (SBN 

132099)

tboutrous@gibsondunn.com 

DANIEL G. SWANSON (SBN 116556)

dswanson@gibsondunn.com

NICOLA T. HANNA (SBN 130694)

nhanna@gibsondunn.com

JASON C. LO (SBN 219030)

jlo@gibsondunn.com

JENNIFER J. RHO (SBN 254312)

jrho@gibsondunn.com 

MELISSA PHAN (SBN 266880)

mphan@gibsondunn.com

RYAN K. IWAHASHI (SBN 284766)

riwahashi@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

333 South Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Tel: (213) 229-7000

Fax: (213) 229-7520

CYNTHIA RICHMAN (DC Bar No. 

492089, Pro Hac Vice)

crichman@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: (202) 955-8500

Fax: (202) 467-0539

Attorneys Non-Parties Compal 

Electronics, Inc., FIH Mobile Ltd., 

Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., 

Pegatron Corporation, and Wistron 

Corporation

HUGH F. BANGASSER (Pro Hac 

Vice)

hugh.bangasser@klgates.com

CHRISTOPHER M. WYANT (Pro Hac 

Vice)

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 29 of 34
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 29

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

chris.wyant@klgates.com

J. TIMOTHY HOBBS (Pro Hac Vice)

tim.hobbs@klgates.com

K&L GATES LLP

925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900

Seattle, Washington 98104

Telephone: +1 206 623 7580

Facsimile: +1 206 370 6371

CAITLIN C. BLANCHE (SBN 254109)

caitlin.blanche@klgates.com

K&L GATES LLP

1 Park Plaza Twelfth Floor

Irvine, CA 92614

Telephone: +1 949 253 0900

Facsimile: +1 949 253 0902

Attorneys for Non-Party Wistron 

Corporation

By: /s/ Joseph R. Baker

Jennifer Milici

J. Alexander Ansaldo 

Joseph R. Baker 

Daniel Matheson

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax)

jmilici@ftc.gov

jansaldo@ftc.gov

jbaker1@ftc.gov

dmatheson@ftc.gov

 Lin W. Kahn, Cal. Bar No. 261387 

 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

 901 Market Street, Suite 570 

 San Francisco, CA 94103 

 (415) 848-5115; (415) 848-5184 (fax) 

 lkahn@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 30 of 34
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 30

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

By: /s/ Kalpana Srinivasan 

Steven N. Williams

Joseph W. Cotchett

Joyce M. Chang

Mark F. Ram

Brian Danitz

COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY, 

LLP

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200

Burlingame, CA 94010

Tel.: (650) 697-6000

Fax: (650) 697-0577

swilliams@cpmlegal.com

jcotchett@cpmlegal.com

jchang@cpmlega.com

mram@cpmlegal.com

danitz@cpmlegal.com

Kalpana Srinivasan

Marc M. Seltzer

Steven G. Sklaver

Amanda Bonn

Oleg Elkhunovich

SUSMAN GODFREY LLP

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Tel.: (310) 789-3100

Fax: (310) 789-3006

ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com

mmseltzer@susmangodfrey.com

ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

abonn@susmangodfrey.com

oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com

Joseph Grinstein

SUSMAN GODFREY LLP

1000 Louisiana Street # 5100

Houston, TX 77002

Tel.: (713) 651-9366

Fax: (713) 654-6666

grinstein@susmangodfrey.com

Attorneys for MDL Plaintiffs

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 31 of 34
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 31

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

By: /s/ Gary A. Bornstein 

Gary A. Bornstein 

Yonatan Even

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019 

Tel: (212) 474-1000

Fax: (212) 474-3700

gbornstein@cravath.com

yeven@cravath.com

Robert A. Van Nest 

Asim M. Bhansali 

Eugene M. Paige 

Justina Sessions 

David W. Rizk 

Alexander Dryer

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

rvannest@keker.com

abhansali@keker.com

epaige@keker.com

jsessions@keker.com

drizk@keker.com

adryer@keker.com

Richard S. Taffet 

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

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2541

Tel: (202) 739-3000

Fax: (202) 739 3001

willard.tom@morganlewis.com

Donn P. Pickett 

Geoffrey T. Holtz

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 

Tel: (415) 442-1000

Fax: (415) 442-1001

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 32 of 34
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 32

JOINT. SUPP. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

donn.pickett@morganlewis.com

geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendant Qualcomm 

Incorporated

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2018 ___________________________

Honorable Nathaniel M. Cousins

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 33 of 34
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 1

FILER’S ATTESTATION CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK

FILER’S ATTESTATION

I, Edward H. Takashima, am the ECF user whose identification and 

password are being used to file this Joint Stipulated Supplemental Protective Order Governing Confidential Material. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the signatories of this document have concurred in this filing.

/s/ Edward H. Takashima

Edward H. Takashima

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 447 Filed 01/04/18 Page 34 of 34