Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Full title: APPLE INC., a California corporation Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Feb 1, 2013

Case No.: 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013)

Opinion

Case No.: 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)

02-01-2013

APPLE INC., a California corporation Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.

PAUL S. GREWAL

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND

DENYING-IN-PART APPLE'S AND

SAMSUNG'S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 600, 613, 781, 782, 801,

819, 857, 934, 939, 965, 984, 986, 987,

990, 994, 996, 1041, 1044, 1047, 1056,

1067, 1074, 1088, 2149)

What tribbles are to the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, and Mr. Spock, the parties' ever-multiplying sealing and redaction requests are to this case, Judge Koh, and the undersigned. In this order, the court addresses over two dozen sealing requests covering thousands of pages of documents brought by both Apple, Inc. ("Apple") and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively "Samsung"). The parties move to seal various nondispositive motions and supporting exhibits, and, unless otherwise noted, they have filed declarations with each motion to support their claims that the documents should remain sealed. Because of the large number of documents designated for sealing, the court first reiterates the legal standards for sealing and then summarizes, in table format, the motions, the parties' requests, and the result of each request.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

"Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'"¹ Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point."² Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.³

1 Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

2 Id.

3 Id. at 1178-79.

Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access.⁴ Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action," parties moving to seal must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c).⁵ As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a "particularized showing"⁶ that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed.⁷ "[B]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning" will not suffice.⁸ A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,⁹ but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.¹⁰

4 See id. at 1180.

5 Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

6 Id.

7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

8 Id.

9 See id. at 1179-80.

10 See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The rule allows sealing orders only where the parties have "establishe[d] that the document or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law."¹¹ As this court has previously pointedly noted, the rule requires parties to "narrowly tailor" their requests only to sealable material.¹²

11 Id.

12 Id.

II. DISCUSSION

The court once again reiterates as it did in its last sealing order¹³ that much of the information the parties want sealed has become publicly available, either through presentation at trial or through the parties' commercial activities. In consideration of the burden from sealing imposed on the court and, more importantly, the public, the court reminds the parties that they should keep in mind their obligation to inform the court if the information in previously sealed materials becomes publicly available.

13 See Docket No. 1978.

All of the motions to seal at issue here relate to discovery motions that were nondispositive. For all of the motions, the lower "good cause" standard therefore applies. The court has considered each of the documents the parties have designated for sealing and, as articulated in the table below, determined which documents may remain under seal or redacted and which documents must be unsealed.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦DN ¦Material ¦Result ¦ +---+---------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to redact portions of the motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to compel is DENIED. The proposed redactions ¦ ¦ ¦Confidential portions of ¦consist of information regarding Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's Motion to Compel ¦participation in standards setting ¦ ¦600¦Discovery Relating to its ¦organizations, its patent prosecution ¦ ¦ ¦Affirmative Defenses and ¦process, and how Samsung's employees searched¦ ¦ ¦Counterclaims ("Motion to ¦for relevant documents. Samsung has not made ¦ ¦ ¦Compel") ¦a particularized showing of how this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ +---+---------------------------+---------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's requests on Samsung's behalf to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits C-T, V, CC and EE are DENIED because¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦they are not narrowly tailored to proprietary¦ ¦ ¦ ¦or confidential information for which Samsung¦ ¦ ¦ ¦has made a particularized showing of harm. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits C and D consists of excerpts from ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦depositions of Samsung employees. The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦excerpts primarily consist of descriptions of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦how the employees searched for relevant ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦documents and whether they preserved relevant¦ ¦ ¦ ¦documents regarding the patents at issue in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this case. Samsung has not shown how this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be harmful if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit E consists of excerpts from Juho ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lee's deposition, in which Lee discusses ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits C-T, V, CC, and EE¦Samsung's various research and development ¦ ¦ ¦to the Declaration of ¦centers, and that information is publicly ¦ ¦ ¦Samuel J. Maselli ISO ¦available on Samsung's website. ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's Motion to Compel ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit F consists of excerpts from ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gert-Jan Van Lieshout's deposition, which ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦includes Lieshout's speculation about ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦business motivations and instances where he ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦could not answer the questions. Samsung has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦failed to provide a particularized showing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that specific harm will result if the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information is made publicly available. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit G, which contains excerpts from ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Jeong-Seok Oh's deposition, primarily ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦consists of a dispute between the parties' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦attorneys about the breadth of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦attorney-client privilege. Samsung has failed¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to provide a particularized showing that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦specific harm will result if the dispute is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦made publicly available. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits H, I, J, and K consist of letters ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦the parties' counsel regarding depositions of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung employees and whether Samsung took ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦necessary steps to preserve documents. Nothing in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the letters is proprietary or for that matter ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularly confidential. Samsung has not shown ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦how this information would be harmful if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit L consists of Samsung's identification ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of custodians and search terms, which include ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦generic terms such as "iPhone," patent numbers, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and "digital image processing." Samsung has not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦shown how this information would be detrimental if¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits M, N, O consist of communications ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between the parties' counsel regarding appropriate¦ ¦ ¦ ¦search terms and custodians. As with Exhibit L, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦numerous search terms are generic and Samsung has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not shown how they would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revealed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits P, Q, R, S, and T consist of excerpts ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦from depositions of Samsung employees, in which ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦they describe Samsung's patent prosecution ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦process, its participation in standard setting ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦organizations, and its process for determining ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦whether patents are essential to a standard. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung has not made a particularized showing of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦how these business activities would be detrimental¦ ¦ ¦ ¦if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit V consists of a letter between the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦parties' counsel regarding documents regarding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's participation in standard setting ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦organizations that were mentioned in depositions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦but had not been produced. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularized showing how descriptions of these ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦documents would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits CC and EE consist of letters between ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the parties' counsel regarding discovery disputes ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦such as custodians and unproduced documents. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung has not shown how information about these ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦discovery disputes would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ +---+----------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's request on Samsung's behalf to redact ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's Motion to ¦portions of the motion to compel is DENIED. ¦ ¦ ¦Compel Production of ¦Samsung seeks redactions of descriptions of its ¦ ¦613¦Documents and Things ¦methods for maintaining financial information, but¦ ¦ ¦("Motion to Compel ¦it has not made a particularized showing of how ¦ ¦ ¦Production") ¦this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's requests on Samsung's behalf to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦seal or redact portions of Exhibits A, H, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and J are DENIED because they are not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦narrowly tailored to confidential or ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proprietary information for which Samsung ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦has made a particularized showing of harm ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit A consists of a letter between ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the parties' counsel regarding production ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of documents responsive to discovery ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦requests. The letter describes documents ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦but does not disclose their contents, and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦even if it did, Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularized showing of how that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits A, H, and J to the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of Mia Mazza ISO ¦• Exhibit H consists of a letter between ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's Motion to Compel ¦the parties' counsel describing a consumer ¦ ¦ ¦Production ¦survey regarding Samsung products. The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proposed redactions include references to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the methodology of the survey, but Samsung ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦has not shown that this information is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proprietary or made a particularized ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦showing of how it would be harmful if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit J consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Tim Sheppard in which he ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦describes Samsung's methods for calculating¦ ¦ ¦ ¦finance information. He explains what ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦accounting system Samsung uses and how to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦retrieve information from its finance ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦database. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularized showing of how this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ +---+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal or redact portions of ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Motion to Compel ¦the motion to compel production is DENIED. ¦ ¦ ¦Production of Documents ¦Apple has not made a particularized showing¦ ¦ ¦Relating to Apple's Efforts ¦that the information to be redacted would ¦ ¦781¦to Obtain Design Patents ¦be detrimental if revealed. The proposed ¦ ¦ ¦Related to the ¦redactions consist primarily of Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦Patents-In-Suit ("Motion to ¦objections to Samsung's requests for ¦ ¦ ¦Compel re Design Patents") ¦production. Redactions regarding Exhibit F ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦make only references to Apple's designs but¦ ¦ ¦ ¦do not reveal the actual designs. ¦ +---+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to redact portions of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦declaration is DENIED. The requested ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of Diane C. ¦redactions consist of Apple's responses to ¦ ¦ ¦Hutnyan ISO Samsung's Motion ¦discovery requests by Samsung. The ¦ ¦ ¦to Compel re Design Patents ¦responses do not contain proprietary or ¦ ¦ ¦("Hutnyan Declaration") ¦confidential information and Apple has not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦made a particularized showing of harm that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦would result if the responses were ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ +---+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal Exhibit B is DENIED ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦because Apple does not maintain a claim of ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits B and F to the ¦confidentiality on the contents. ¦ ¦ ¦Hutnyan Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to redact portions of Exhibit F¦ ¦ ¦ ¦is ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. The proposed redactions consist of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's confidential CAD designs and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦internal project code names. The request is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦narrowly tailored to Apple's proprietary ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information. ¦ +---+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal or redact portions of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the motion to compel is DENIED because the ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Motion to Compel ¦proposed redactions are not narrowly ¦ ¦ ¦Production of Materials from¦tailored. The proposed redactions primarily ¦ ¦782¦Related Proceedings and to ¦consist of information about Apple's refusal¦ ¦ ¦Enforce December 22, 2011 ¦to produce discovery and its objections to ¦ ¦ ¦Court Order ("Motion to ¦Samsung's requests for production. This ¦ ¦ ¦Compel and to Enforce") ¦information is not confidential, and Apple ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cannot use sealing motions to disguise ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦allegations of its misdeeds. ¦ +---+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to redact portions of the ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of Diane C. ¦declaration is DENIED. The redacted portions¦ ¦ ¦Hutnyan ISO Samsung's Motion¦primarily consist of descriptions of Apple's¦ ¦ ¦to Compel and to Enforce ¦refusal to produce discovery. This ¦ ¦ ¦("Hutnyan Declaration") ¦information is not confidential, and Apple ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cannot use sealing motions to disguise ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦allegations of its misdeeds. ¦ +---+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal Exhibit B is DENIED ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦because Apple does not maintain a claim of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidentiality on the contents. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal entirely Exhibit C is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED because it is not narrowly tailored. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to redact Exhibit C is GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The court granted an earlier request to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact Samsung's motion to compel and adopts¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that reasoning here.¹⁴ Samsung shall file ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the same reda15cted version as it posted ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦pursuant to that order.¹⁵ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits B-D and N to the ¦The request to seal entirely Exhibit D is ¦ ¦ ¦Hutnyan Declaration ¦DENIED because it is not narrowly tailored. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to redact Exhibit D is GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The court granted an earlier request to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact Apple's opposition to Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦motion to compel and adopts that reasoning ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦here.¹⁶ Samsung shall file the same ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redacted version as it posted pursuant to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that order.¹⁷ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to redact portions of Exhibit N ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦is GRANTED. The proposed redactions consist ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Apple's confidential CAD designs and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦internal project code names. The request is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦narrowly tailored to Apple's proprietary ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information. ¦ +---+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦The request to redact portions of Samsung's ¦ ¦801¦version of Samsung's ¦opposition is DENIED. The proposed ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to ¦redactions ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

14 See Docket No. 527.

15 See Docket No. 487-0

16 See Docket No. 525.

17 See Docket No. 502-3.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦Apple's Motion for Rule 37¦consist of descriptions of the spreadsheets ¦ ¦¦(b)(2) Sanctions ¦Samsung produced. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦¦("Opposition to Sanctions ¦particularized showing of harm for either the ¦ ¦¦Motion") ¦descriptions of the spreadsheets or for the ¦ ¦¦ ¦underlying content. ¦ ++--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦The request to redact portions of the declaration¦ ¦¦Confidential, unredacted ¦is DENIED. The proposed redactions are ¦ ¦¦version of the Declaration¦descriptions and references of exhibits. The ¦ ¦¦of Joby Martin ISO of ¦references do not disclose the contents of the ¦ ¦¦Samsung's Opposition to ¦exhibits, and in any event, as the court ¦ ¦¦Sanctions Motion ¦describes below, the contents of the exhibits ¦ ¦¦ ¦likewise should not be sealed. ¦ ++--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦The requests to seal Exhibits 2 through 9 are ¦ ¦¦ ¦DENIED because they are not narrowly tailored to ¦ ¦¦ ¦confidential or proprietary information for which¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung has made a particularized showing of harm¦ ¦¦ ¦if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 2 consists of a spreadsheet disclosing ¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung's 2011 financial information, including ¦ ¦¦ ¦entities to which it sold products, the price of ¦ ¦¦ ¦those products, and information about the source ¦ ¦¦ ¦of the products. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦¦ ¦particularized showing of how this information ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦would be detrimental if disclosed.¹⁸ ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 3 consists of a 2011 business plan ¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung drafted with actual and projected sales ¦ ¦¦Exhibits 2-9 to the Martin¦figures, descriptions of Samsung's structure, and¦ ¦¦Declaration ¦inventory summaries. Although Samsung recites ¦ ¦¦ ¦boilerplate terms that this information is ¦ ¦¦ ¦proprietary and confidential, it does not provide¦ ¦¦ ¦a particularized showing of how this information ¦ ¦¦ ¦would be detrimental if disclosed.¹⁹ ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 4 consists of an audited but non-public¦ ¦¦ ¦financial statement prepared for Samsung in which¦ ¦¦ ¦the accounting firm KPMG summarizes Samsung's ¦ ¦¦ ¦financial position. Samsung has not provided a ¦ ¦¦ ¦particularized showing of how information about ¦ ¦¦ ¦its financial status in March 2011 would be ¦ ¦¦ ¦harmful if disclosed now. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 5 consists of a weekly sales report ¦ ¦¦ ¦prepared by Samsung that includes sales figures, ¦ ¦¦ ¦market analysis, product development schedules, ¦ ¦¦ ¦and marketing and promotion plans. The report ¦ ¦¦ ¦discusses plans for winter and spring 2011 and ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

18 The court notes that Judge Koh rejected a bid by Apple to seal similar financial information, albeit at the higher "compelling reason" standard. See Docket No. 1649. Samsung here has not provided substantive reasons that the information should not be disclosed, and so the court finds no good cause exists to seal the information.

19 The court again points to Judge Koh's earlier decision regarding financial information for further explanation of why this type of information is not appropriate for sealing. See Docket No. 1649.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦ ¦sales figures for the first week of 2011. Samsung ¦ ¦¦ ¦has not made a particularized showing of how this ¦ ¦¦ ¦information about sales and plans that was nearly a ¦ ¦¦ ¦year old at the time of the sealing request would be¦ ¦¦ ¦detrimental to Samsung. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 6 consists of Samsung's objections and ¦ ¦¦ ¦responses to an Apple interrogatory. Most of the ¦ ¦¦ ¦responses and objections are boilerplate and Samsung¦ ¦¦ ¦has not provided any reason why they should remain ¦ ¦¦ ¦sealed. Samsung's desire to seal shipment dates for ¦ ¦¦ ¦its products likewise fails because it does not ¦ ¦¦ ¦provide a particularized showing of what harm would ¦ ¦¦ ¦result from disclosure of the information. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 7 consists of a letter between the ¦ ¦¦ ¦parties' counsel regarding discovery of Samsung's ¦ ¦¦ ¦financial information. The letter describes but does¦ ¦¦ ¦not disclose the contents of various documents. ¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung has not provided a particularized showing of¦ ¦¦ ¦how this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 8 consists of a chart of accounts Samsung ¦ ¦¦ ¦prepared. The chart describes various expense ¦ ¦¦ ¦accounts and expense figures for 2011. Samsung has ¦ ¦¦ ¦not provided a particularized showing of how its ¦ ¦¦ ¦expense projections from the year before this ¦ ¦¦ ¦request was made would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 9 consists of a 2011 Global Consolidation ¦ ¦¦ ¦Package Report by Samsung that contains information ¦ ¦¦ ¦about sales, expenses, income, changes in equity, ¦ ¦¦ ¦cash flows, and other assets. Although Samsung ¦ ¦¦ ¦identifies this information as proprietary and ¦ ¦¦ ¦confidential, it does not provide reasons beyond ¦ ¦¦ ¦boilerplate references to competitive disadvantage ¦ ¦¦ ¦if the information was disclosed. Samsung therefore ¦ ¦¦ ¦has failed to make a particularized showing of harm.¦ ++-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦The requests to seal Exhibits 5 and 6 are DENIED ¦ ¦¦ ¦because the requests are not narrowly tailored to ¦ ¦¦Exhibits 5 and 6 to the¦information for which the parties have provided a ¦ ¦¦Declaration of John S. ¦particularized showing of harm if the information is¦ ¦¦Gordon ISO Samsung's ¦disclosed. ¦ ¦¦Opposition to Sanctions¦ ¦ ¦¦Motion ¦Exhibit 5 consists of a letter between the parties' ¦ ¦¦ ¦counsel regarding the adequacy of a financial ¦ ¦¦ ¦spreadsheet prepared by Samsung. The letter ¦ ¦¦ ¦describes the spreadsheet but does not disclose its ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦ ¦contents. Samsung has not explained how ¦ ¦¦ ¦descriptions of a spreadsheet would be detrimental¦ ¦¦ ¦if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦Exhibit 6 consists of excerpts from a deposition ¦ ¦¦ ¦of Jaehwang Sim. Sim discusses his personal ¦ ¦¦ ¦background, his position at Samsung, and the fact ¦ ¦¦ ¦that Samsung's Chinese subsidiaries affect their ¦ ¦¦ ¦financial status. Samsung has not provided a ¦ ¦¦ ¦particularized showing of harm if this information¦ ¦¦ ¦was disclosed. ¦ ++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦The requests to seal Exhibits 1, 7, 9, 10, and 12 ¦ ¦¦ ¦are DENIED because they are not narrowly tailored ¦ ¦¦ ¦to confidential or proprietary information for ¦ ¦¦ ¦which Apple has made a particularized showing of ¦ ¦¦ ¦harm if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 1 consists of Apple's Gross Margin ¦ ¦¦ ¦Report that discloses information about material ¦ ¦¦ ¦costs, management costs, marketing costs, and ¦ ¦¦ ¦gross margins. The data is from 2011. Apple has ¦ ¦¦ ¦not made a particularized showing of how its past ¦ ¦¦ ¦financial data would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 7 consists of a spreadsheet with ¦ ¦¦ ¦information about 2099 to 2012 sales on a per-unit¦ ¦¦ ¦basis. Although Apple points to its confidential ¦ ¦¦ ¦nature, it fails to provide a particularized ¦ ¦¦ ¦showing of the harm that would result if the ¦ ¦¦Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, ¦information were revealed. ¦ ¦¦10, and 12 to the ¦ ¦ ¦¦Declaration of ¦• Exhibit 9 consists of a letter between the ¦ ¦¦Christopher E. Price ISO ¦parties' counsel regarding Apple's production of ¦ ¦¦Samsung's Opposition to ¦discovery for this case. The proposed redactions ¦ ¦¦Sanctions Motion ¦consist of references to documents with ¦ ¦¦ ¦information about Intel's baseband chips in Apple ¦ ¦¦ ¦products, names of custodians, and the numbers of ¦ ¦¦ ¦models Apple has that were responsive to Samsung's¦ ¦¦ ¦request. Apple has not made a particularized ¦ ¦¦ ¦showing how disclosure of these references, which ¦ ¦¦ ¦do not disclose any proprietary information, would¦ ¦¦ ¦be harmful. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 10 consists of information about Apple's¦ ¦¦ ¦earnings from search engines on its devices from ¦ ¦¦ ¦2006 to 2012. Apple makes no showing of potential ¦ ¦¦ ¦harm that would result if the information were ¦ ¦¦ ¦disclosed and points only to the fact that the ¦ ¦¦ ¦information is confidential. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Apple filed no supporting declaration for ¦ ¦¦ ¦Exhibit 12 and does not appear to designate it. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦The requests to seal Exhibits 3 and 4 are ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦ ¦GRANTED because they consist of royalty ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦information that may be sealed because ¦ ¦¦ ¦disclosure ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦of this information may be harmful.²⁰ ¦ ++-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦The request to redact portions of Sheppard's ¦ ¦¦Confidential, unredacted ¦declaration is DENIED. The proposed redactions¦ ¦¦vesion of the Declaration of ¦consist of descriptions of the financial ¦ ¦¦Timothy Sheppard ISO ¦documents Samsung provided to Apple and how ¦ ¦¦Samsung's Opposition to ¦they were composed. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦¦Sanctions Motion ("Sheppard ¦particularized showing how references to the ¦ ¦¦Declaration") ¦spreadsheets or the methodology for composing ¦ ¦¦ ¦them would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ++-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦The requests to seal Exhibits A through F are ¦ ¦¦ ¦DENIED because they are not narrowly tailored ¦ ¦¦ ¦to confidential or proprietary information for¦ ¦¦ ¦which Samsung has made a particularized ¦ ¦¦ ¦showing of harm if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit A consists of a spreadsheet of ¦ ¦¦ ¦financial data from Samsung from 2010 and ¦ ¦¦ ¦2011. Samsung has not shown how disclosure of ¦ ¦¦ ¦its ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦past financial information will be harmful. ¦ ¦¦ ¦²¹ ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit B consists of a spreadsheet of sales¦ ¦¦ ¦and financial data from 2007 to 2011 of ¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung products practicing the patents at ¦ ¦¦ ¦issue in this case. Samsung has not shown how ¦ ¦¦ ¦disclosure of its past financial information ¦ ¦¦ ¦will be harmful. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦Exhibits A to F to the ¦• Exhibit C consists of an excerpt from a ¦ ¦¦Sheppard Declaration ¦deposition of Tim Sheppard in which he ¦ ¦¦ ¦discusses how Samsung calculates its financial¦ ¦¦ ¦information and how it prepared the ¦ ¦¦ ¦spreadsheets referenced above. Samsung has not¦ ¦¦ ¦made a particularized showing of how ¦ ¦¦ ¦disclosure of its accounting methodology would¦ ¦¦ ¦be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit D consists of a list of Samsung ¦ ¦¦ ¦device carriers. Beyond its boilerplate ¦ ¦¦ ¦recitation of the information being ¦ ¦¦ ¦confidential and proprietary and harmful if ¦ ¦¦ ¦disclosed, Samsung has not provided a ¦ ¦¦ ¦particularized showing of harm if this list ¦ ¦¦ ¦were disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibits E and F consist of a spreadsheet ¦ ¦¦ ¦with financial data about Samsung's products. ¦ ¦¦ ¦The data is from 2011 or before, and Samsung ¦ ¦¦ ¦has not made a particularized showing of how ¦ ¦¦ ¦this past financial information would be ¦ ¦¦ ¦harmful if disclosed. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦819 Confidential, unredacted version Samsung's request to redact the reply is¦ ¦DENIED ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

20 See In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x 568, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Docket No. 1649.

21 See Docket No. 1649.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦ ¦WITHOUT PREJUDICE because it is not narrowly ¦ ¦¦ ¦tailored to content for which Samsung has made a ¦ ¦¦ ¦particularized showing of harm. Most of the ¦ ¦¦of Samsung's Reply ISO ¦redactions consist of names of Samsung executives ¦ ¦¦its Motion for a ¦and references to their positions. Samsung has not ¦ ¦¦Protective Order ¦made a sufficient showing of how this information ¦ ¦¦("Reply re Protective ¦would be detrimental if disclosed. Samsung's ¦ ¦¦Order") ¦redactions also include references to internal code ¦ ¦¦ ¦names which may be confidential and proprietary. ¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung may seek narrow redactions of that ¦ ¦¦ ¦information. ¦ ++-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦Confidential, ¦Samsung's request for redactions is GRANTED. ¦ ¦¦unredacted version of ¦Samsung's proposed redactions consist of project ¦ ¦¦the Declaration of ¦code names for Samsung devices sold in other ¦ ¦¦Hankil Kang ISO Reply ¦countries. ¦ ¦¦re Protective Order ¦ ¦ ++-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung's requests, some on Apple's behalf, to seal ¦ ¦¦ ¦Exhibits B, D, K, P-S, and U are DENIED because they¦ ¦¦ ¦are not narrowly tailored to confidential or ¦ ¦¦ ¦proprietary information. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit B consists of excerpts from a deposition ¦ ¦¦ ¦of Yunjung Lee in which he discusses whether Samsung¦ ¦¦ ¦considered consumers' emotional responses to ¦ ¦¦ ¦products when pursuing its device development. ¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung has not made a particularized showing that ¦ ¦¦ ¦this information would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit D consists of excerpts from a deposition ¦ ¦¦ ¦of Sungsik Lee in which Lee identifies various email¦ ¦¦ ¦exhibits and provides cursory explanations of the ¦ ¦¦ ¦email content. Samsung has not made a particularized¦ ¦¦Exhibits B, D, K-L, P-U¦showing that this information would be detrimental ¦ ¦¦to the Declaration of ¦if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦Rachel Herrick ¦ ¦ ¦¦Kassabian ISO Reply re ¦• Exhibit K contains excerpts from a deposition of ¦ ¦¦Protective Order ¦Jonathan Ive. Apple's proposed redactions primarily ¦ ¦¦ ¦consist of descriptions of color problems when ¦ ¦¦ ¦manufacturing Apple devices and descriptions of ¦ ¦¦ ¦"device design meetings" in which a ¦ ¦¦ ¦three-dimensional diagram of a proposed device would¦ ¦¦ ¦be shown. Apple has not made a particularized ¦ ¦¦ ¦showing of how this information would be detrimental¦ ¦¦ ¦if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit P consists of emails between an Apple ¦ ¦¦ ¦executive and a Samsung executive regarding ¦ ¦¦ ¦scheduling a meeting to discuss Apple's concerns ¦ ¦¦ ¦about possible infringement by Samsung. No details ¦ ¦¦ ¦of the meeting are disclosed in the email, and Apple¦ ¦¦ ¦has not made a particularized showing regarding how ¦ ¦¦ ¦acknowledgment that the parties' representatives ¦ ¦¦ ¦attempted to meet to discuss possible ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦infringement before initiation of litigation ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit Q consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Boris Teksler in which he ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦references Apple's litigation with Kodak and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦approaches to another third party regarding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦licenses. Apple claims these are detailed ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidential licensing discussions. But ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's litigation with Kodak is not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidential and Teksler only vaguely ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦references the dialogue between Apple and the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦third party. Apple has not made a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularized showing of how this information¦ ¦ ¦ ¦would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits R and S consist of email chains ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between Apple executives in which they discuss¦ ¦ ¦ ¦their impressions of competitors' devices and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦how to develop Apple's devices. Apple has not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦made a particularized showing of how these ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦comparisons would be detrimental if disclosed.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit U consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Seung-Ho Ahn in which Ahn ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦describes a licensing agreement between ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung and Intel. The excerpts do not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclose licensing information such as pricing¦ ¦ ¦ ¦terms, royalty rates, and minimum payment ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦terms. Ahn instead describes whether the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦license allows Samsung to practice Intel's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦patents. Samsung has not made a particularized¦ ¦ ¦ ¦showing that this information would be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's request to seal Exhibit T is DENIED ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit T consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Minhyung Chung. A substantial ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦portion of the text consists of arguments ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between counsel that Samsung has not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦identified as causing detriment if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The deposition, however, also contains ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦references to Samsung's licensing and royalty ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦rates, which may be redacted. Samsung may ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦bring another narrowly tailored request to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact that information. ¦ +---+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦Samsung asserts that the declaration should be¦ ¦ ¦version of Samsung's ¦sealed because it includes references to ¦ ¦ ¦Supplemental Response to ¦confidential information contained in exhibits¦ ¦857¦Apple's Corrected Reply ¦that should be sealed. Because the court ¦ ¦ ¦ISO Rule 37(b)(2) ¦determines that none of the exhibits ¦ ¦ ¦Sanctions ("Supplemental ¦accompanying the declaration should be sealed,¦ ¦ ¦Response") ¦the court DENIES Samsung's request to seal the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦declaration. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Exhibits A, B, C, I, J, and K to the Samsung's requests to seal Exhibits A, ¦ ¦B, C, I, J, ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦and K are DENIED because they are not narrowly tailored to¦ ¦ ¦confidential or proprietary information. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit A contains excerpts from a deposition of Timothy¦ ¦ ¦Sheppard. The excerpts contain descriptions of the ¦ ¦ ¦spreadsheets used to determine Samsung's financial data ¦ ¦ ¦and the process of review of those spreadsheets during ¦ ¦ ¦discovery. Samsung has not made a particularized showing ¦ ¦ ¦of how this information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦would be harmful if disclosed.²² ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit B contains excerpts from a deposition of ¦ ¦ ¦Jaehwang Sim. The excerpts primarily consist of ¦ ¦ ¦descriptions of the spreadsheets used to compile Samsung's¦ ¦ ¦financial information but do not reveal any actual ¦ ¦ ¦financial information. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦ ¦particularized showing that this information would be ¦ ¦ ¦harmful if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of ¦• Exhibit C contains an expert report compiled by Terry ¦ ¦Christopher E. ¦Musika. The report contains information about Musika's ¦ ¦Price ISO ¦qualifications, a list of the Samsung products Apple ¦ ¦Supplemental ¦alleged infringed, and his determinations of Apple's lost ¦ ¦Response ¦profit damages based on Samsung's financial data. Samsung ¦ ¦ ¦has not provided a particularized showing of how this ¦ ¦ ¦information would be harmful if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit I contains excerpts from a deposition of ¦ ¦ ¦Jaehwang Sim. The nearly 200 page document includes the ¦ ¦ ¦deposition's index, description of Sim's process for ¦ ¦ ¦compiling a spreadsheet with Samsung's financial ¦ ¦ ¦information, and references to Sim's background. Samsung ¦ ¦ ¦has failed to provide a particularized showing of how this¦ ¦ ¦information would be harmful if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit J contains excerpts from a deposition of Timothy¦ ¦ ¦Sheppard. In the deposition, he discusses publicly ¦ ¦ ¦available products that Samsung sold and describes the ¦ ¦ ¦kind of content in a spreadsheet of Samsung's financial ¦ ¦ ¦information. Samsung has failed to provide a ¦ ¦ ¦particularized showing of how this information would be ¦ ¦ ¦harmful if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit K is a spreadsheet detailing Samsung's financial¦ ¦ ¦data. Other than a conclusory ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

22 To the extent the excerpts contain financial data, Samsung has not explained what harm would result if this information were disclosed. See Docket No. 1649.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦statement that disclosure of this information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦"could be used to [Samsung's] disadvantage by ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦its competitors," Samsung fails to explain how¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information about its operating expenses, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revenues, and profits would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revealed.²³ ¦ +---+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal the declaration is DENIED.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The declaration describes the process Kim used¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to collect financial data regarding Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sales. The declaration does not reveal ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of Beomjoon ¦confidential financial information or ¦ ¦ ¦Kim ISO Supplemental ¦proprietary information, and Samsung has ¦ ¦ ¦Response ¦failed to make a particularized showing that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦harm would result if the information contained¦ ¦ ¦ ¦within the declaration were disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's request therefore is not narrowly ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦tailored. ¦ +---+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's request on Apple's behalf to redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦portions of the motion to strike is DENIED ¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦because the proposed redactions are not ¦ ¦ ¦version of Samsung's ¦narrowly tailored. The redactions include ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Strike Expert ¦descriptions of Apple's patents and ¦ ¦934¦Testimony Based on ¦trademarks, which are publicly available ¦ ¦ ¦Undisclosed Facts and ¦information, and discussions of the types of ¦ ¦ ¦Theories ("Motion to ¦financial and licensing information Apple ¦ ¦ ¦Strike") ¦produced during discovery. Apple has not made ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a particularized showing that this information¦ ¦ ¦ ¦would be detrimental if revealed. ¦ +---+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple does not claims of confidentiality for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the contents of Exhibits M or R, and so ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's requests to seal those exhibits are ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦For the reasons explained below, Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦requests on Apple's behalf to seal or redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦portions of the following exhibits are DENIED.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Apple's proposed redactions for Exhibit E ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦consist of discussions regarding notice of its¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits E, H, K, L, M, O,¦infringement contentions. The redactions also ¦ ¦ ¦R, T, U, V, and X attached¦include details about Apple's advertising ¦ ¦ ¦to the Declaration of ¦expenses. Apple has not made a particularized ¦ ¦ ¦James J. Ward ISO Motion ¦showing that these pieces of information would¦ ¦ ¦to Strike ¦be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Apple's proposed redactions for Exhibit H ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦consist of a statement that Apple considered ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦alternative designs for its cell phones and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦tablets and where files of those designs could¦ ¦ ¦ ¦be found. The redacted statements do not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclose what designs Apple considered. Apple ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦has not provided a particularized showing of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦how this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Apple's proposed redactions for Exhibit K ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

23 See Docket No. 1649.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦include descriptions of how a consumer survey was created and what flaws may¦ ¦¦be present in the survey. Apple has not identified how this information ¦ ¦¦would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Apple's proposed redactions for Exhibit O include references to Samsung's ¦ ¦¦non-infringement contentions regarding applets and lack of MP3 mode, which ¦ ¦¦are not confidential or proprietary information. Apple has not provided a ¦ ¦¦particularized showing that the information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦revealed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Apple's proposed redactions to Exhibit V consist of descriptions of ¦ ¦¦documents containing financial data but do not disclose any actual financial¦ ¦¦data. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦Samsung seeks redaction of Exhibit L, which contains excerpts from an expert¦ ¦¦report by Tony D. Givargis. Samsung's proposed redactions consist of ¦ ¦¦descriptions of publicly available patented features and references to a ¦ ¦¦publicly available Sony Ericsson phone. Because this information is not ¦ ¦¦confidential, Samsung's request for redactions is DENIED. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦For the reasons explained below, Samsung's requests on Apple's behalf to ¦ ¦¦seal or redact portions of the following exhibits are DENIED WITHOUT ¦ ¦¦PREJUDICE. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Exhibit T contains excerpts from an expert damages report prepared by ¦ ¦¦Terry Musika. The excerpted portion discusses his conclusion that none of ¦ ¦¦the parties' other licensing agreements would be comparable for an agreement¦ ¦¦for the patents at issue. Apple has not made a particularized showing of how¦ ¦¦that information would be detrimental if revealed. Licensing information ¦ ¦¦such as pricing terms, royalty rates, and minimum payment terms properly may¦ ¦¦be sealed. Apple may bring another motion that is narrowly tailored to the ¦ ¦¦licensing terms or that provides a particularized showing of harm that would¦ ¦¦result if other details from the licensing terms were disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Exhibit U contains names of third-party licensors with whom Apple had ¦ ¦¦agreements. Apple has not provided a particularized showing ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦ ¦of how this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦disclosed.²⁴ Licensing information such as ¦ ¦¦ ¦pricing terms, royalty rates, and minimum payment¦ ¦¦ ¦terms properly may be sealed. Apple may bring ¦ ¦¦ ¦another motion that is narrowly tailored to the ¦ ¦¦ ¦licensing terms or that provides a particularized¦ ¦¦ ¦showing of harm that would result if other ¦ ¦¦ ¦details from the licensing terms were disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Apple's proposed redactions to Exhibit V ¦ ¦¦ ¦include information about whether Apple's ¦ ¦¦ ¦products infringe Samsung's patents, and Apple ¦ ¦¦ ¦has not provided a sufficiently particularized ¦ ¦¦ ¦showing that the information would be detrimental¦ ¦¦ ¦if revealed. The redactions also include ¦ ¦¦ ¦references to Apple's source code features, which¦ ¦¦ ¦is proprietary. Apple may bring another motion ¦ ¦¦ ¦that is narrowly tailored to the source code ¦ ¦¦ ¦disclosures. ¦ ++--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung's request on Apple's behalf to redact ¦ ¦¦ ¦portions of the declaration is DENIED. The ¦ ¦¦Confidential, unredacted ¦proposed redactions consist of descriptions of ¦ ¦¦version of the Declaration¦the exhibits supporting Samsung's motion to ¦ ¦¦of Christopher E. Price ¦strike and Apple's problematic discovery actions.¦ ¦¦ISO Motion to Strike ¦The content of the redactions does not disclose ¦ ¦¦("Price Declaration") ¦any confidential or proprietary information. ¦ ¦¦ ¦Apple has failed to make a particularized showing¦ ¦¦ ¦how this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦ ¦revealed. ¦ ++--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦Because Apple does not maintain claims of ¦ ¦¦ ¦confidentiality regarding Exhibits G, J, N, or ¦ ¦¦ ¦EE, Samsung's requests on Apple's behalf are ¦ ¦¦ ¦DENIED. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦For the reasons explained below, Samsung's ¦ ¦¦ ¦requests on Apple's behalf to seal or redact ¦ ¦¦ ¦portions of the following exhibits are DENIED. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦Exhibits B-GG to the Price¦• Apple's proposed redactions to Exhibits B, E, ¦ ¦¦Declaration ¦H, I consist of descriptions of documents ¦ ¦¦ ¦containing financial information and do not ¦ ¦¦ ¦disclose any actual financial information. Apple ¦ ¦¦ ¦has not made a particularized showing how these ¦ ¦¦ ¦descriptions of documents would be detrimental if¦ ¦¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibits C, D, and F are letters between ¦ ¦¦ ¦Apple's and Samsung's counsel regarding documents¦ ¦¦ ¦that contain financial data. None of the letters ¦ ¦¦ ¦disclose any actual financial data or other ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

24 See Docket No. 1649.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦confidential information, and Apple has failed to make a particularized ¦ ¦¦¦showing of how the information in these documents would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦¦disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit O contains excerpts from a deposition of Vincent O'Brien. Apple ¦ ¦¦¦has not actually provided a supporting declaration regarding this exhibit. ¦ ¦¦¦The court nevertheless has reviewed the proposed redactions, which ¦ ¦¦¦primarily consist of descriptions of licensing agreements without any ¦ ¦¦¦details of those agreements, and has determined that no detriment would ¦ ¦¦¦occur if the full deposition were disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit T contains a letter between Apple's and Samsung's counsel ¦ ¦¦¦regarding production of licensing agreements and financial information. ¦ ¦¦¦Apple's proposed redactions include the identities of third-party licensors¦ ¦¦¦that are not confidential. Apple also seeks to redact details about its ¦ ¦¦¦troubling discovery production in this case. Sealing motions are not ¦ ¦¦¦intended to shield from public disclosure the questionable litigation ¦ ¦¦¦tactics of parties. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit U contains an email chain between Apple and a third party ¦ ¦¦¦licensor that describes a potential licensing agreement between the two. ¦ ¦¦¦Apple has not made a particularized showing how this discussion would be ¦ ¦¦¦detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit X is a letter between Apple's and Samsung's counsel regarding ¦ ¦¦¦production of Apple's licensing agreements and financial information. ¦ ¦¦¦Apple's proposed redactions primarily consist of descriptions of its ¦ ¦¦¦production without details about proprietary or confidential financial ¦ ¦¦¦information. Apple also seeks to redact names of third parties with whom it¦ ¦¦¦has licensing and/or settlement agreements. Apple has not made a ¦ ¦¦¦particularized showing of how this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦¦disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibits FF and GG contain sample licensing agreements for Made-for-iPod ¦ ¦¦¦licensees. Apple has not made a particularized showing that this ¦ ¦¦¦information would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦For the reasons explained below, Samsung's request on Apple's behalf to ¦ ¦¦¦seal or redact portions of the ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦following exhibits are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits P, Q, R, S, Y, Z, AA-DD contain ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦licensing agreements between Apple and third ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦parties. Although pricing terms, royalty rates, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and minimum payment terms properly may be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sealed,²⁵ Apple has failed to show ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularized harm that would result if other ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information in the licensing agreements were ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. Apple may bring another motion that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦is narrowly tailored to the licensing terms or ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that provides a particularized showing of harm ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that would result if other details from the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦licensing terms were disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits V and W are draft licensing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreements between Apple and third parties. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple has failed to show particularized harm ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that would result if the agreements were ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. The court has not identified any ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦pricing terms, royalty rates or minimum payments¦ ¦ ¦ ¦terms in the draft agreements, but because of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the confidentiality of those types of terms, the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦court shall permit Apple to bring another motion¦ ¦ ¦ ¦with redactions narrowly tailored to those types¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of terms if the draft agreements in fact contain¦ ¦ ¦ ¦them. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦For the reasons below, Samsung's requests on ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's behalf to seal or redact the following ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exhibits are GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits K, L, M contain information about ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple product royalties and properly may be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sealed. ¦ +---+------------------------+------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted¦Apple's request to seal or redact the motion is ¦ ¦ ¦version of Apple's ¦DENIED. The court has determined that most of ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Strike ¦the exhibits to the motion should not be sealed,¦ ¦939¦Portions of Samsung's ¦and so references to those exhibits in the ¦ ¦ ¦Expert Reports ("Motion ¦motion likewise should not be sealed. Apple has ¦ ¦ ¦to Strike") ¦not provided any other showing that the redacted¦ ¦ ¦ ¦portions would be detrimental if revealed. ¦ +---+------------------------+------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's request to seal its proposed order is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. In light of the fact that the court has ¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted¦determined that most of the requests to seal or ¦ ¦ ¦version of Apple's ¦redact the exhibits should be denied, references¦ ¦ ¦proposed order regarding¦to those exhibits' contents in the proposed ¦ ¦ ¦the Motion to Strike ¦order have no support. The proposed order also ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦primarily consists of descriptions of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exhibits, and Apple has failed to show how these¦ ¦ ¦ ¦references would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

25 See In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569-70; see also Docket No. 1649.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦ ¦For the reasons explained below, Samsung's and Apple's ¦ ¦¦ ¦requests to seal or redact portions of the following ¦ ¦¦ ¦exhibits are DENIED. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 2 is an expert report from Stephen Gray that ¦ ¦¦ ¦discusses the invalidity of two of Apple's patents. The ¦ ¦¦ ¦contents include information about the details of the ¦ ¦¦ ¦patents, which are publicly available. The proposed ¦ ¦¦ ¦redactions consist of references to Mitsubishi's ¦ ¦¦ ¦DiamondTouch technology, which also is not ¦ ¦¦ ¦confidential.²⁶ Apple has failed to make a particularized¦ ¦¦ ¦showing of harm that would result if these statements were¦ ¦¦ ¦revealed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Neither Samsung nor Apple filed a supporting declaration¦ ¦¦ ¦to seal Exhibits 3, 4, or 5. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 11 is an expert report from Andries Van Dam that¦ ¦¦ ¦discusses the invalidity of Apple's patents. The contents ¦ ¦¦Exhibits to the ¦include information about the details of the patents, ¦ ¦¦Declaration of ¦which are publicly available. The proposed redactions ¦ ¦¦Marc J. Pernick ¦consist primarily of publications describing touchscreen ¦ ¦¦ISO the Motion to¦technology that are not confidential. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦Strike ¦• Exhibit 12 is an expert report from Dr. Brian Von Herzen¦ ¦¦ ¦in which he discusses the invalidity of Apple's patents. ¦ ¦¦ ¦The report primarily contains descriptions of patents, ¦ ¦¦ ¦which are publicly available documents. The parties' ¦ ¦¦ ¦respective proposed redactions also primarily consist of ¦ ¦¦ ¦descriptions of patents or whether inventors copied ¦ ¦¦ ¦previous technology. Neither of these types of information¦ ¦¦ ¦are the appropriate subject matter for sealing. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 13 is a letter between Apple's and Samsung's ¦ ¦¦ ¦attorneys regarding the expert reports. The letter ¦ ¦¦ ¦references the various reports and the patents and ¦ ¦¦ ¦publications used in those reports to support the ¦ ¦¦ ¦invalidity contentions. This information is not ¦ ¦¦ ¦confidential and neither party has made a sufficient ¦ ¦¦ ¦particularized showing that harm would result if the ¦ ¦¦ ¦letter were disclosed ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 16 contains Samsung's responses to Apple's ¦ ¦¦ ¦second set of interrogatories. Samsung's responses consist¦ ¦¦ ¦primarily of denials that ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

26 The statements in the redactions suggest Youtube videos of the various technologies. See Docket No. 939 Ex. 2.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦Samsung's products do not infringe Apple's patents. The exhibit contains ¦ ¦¦¦content that is neither proprietary nor confidential, and Samsung has ¦ ¦¦¦failed to make a particularized showing that this information would be ¦ ¦¦¦detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 17 consists of a rebuttal expert report from Stephen Gray in ¦ ¦¦¦which he discusses how Samsung's products do not infringe Apple's patents. ¦ ¦¦¦The report includes information about publicly available features of the ¦ ¦¦¦devices and publicly available information about the patents at issue. The ¦ ¦¦¦proposed redactions concern Samsung's "hold still" feature, which is ¦ ¦¦¦publicly available on its devices. Samsung has not made a particularized ¦ ¦¦¦showing that this information would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 18 is a rebuttal expert report from Dr. Brian Von Herzen in which¦ ¦¦¦he discusses how Samsung's products do not infringe Apple's patents. The ¦ ¦¦¦report includes information about publicly available features of the ¦ ¦¦¦devices and publicly available information about the patents at issue. ¦ ¦¦¦Samsung's proposed redactions include Apple's prosecution history and ¦ ¦¦¦limitations to its touch screen technology, which are not confidential. ¦ ¦¦¦Apple's proposed redactions include inventors' statements about the nature ¦ ¦¦¦of the patented products. Neither Apple nor Samsung has made a ¦ ¦¦¦particularized showing that all of the content of their proposed redactions¦ ¦¦¦would be harmful if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 19 is a rebuttal expert report from Stephen Gray in which he ¦ ¦¦¦discusses how Samsung's products do not infringe Apple's patents. The ¦ ¦¦¦report includes information about publicly available features of the ¦ ¦¦¦devices and publicly available information about the patents at issue. ¦ ¦¦¦Samsung's proposed redactions consist of references to the ability of a ¦ ¦¦¦user to use two fingers to scroll on a touch screen, which is a publicly ¦ ¦¦¦available feature of the devices. Apple's proposed redactions consist of ¦ ¦¦¦statements about patent conception dates. Neither party has provided a ¦ ¦¦¦particularized showing how this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦¦disclosed. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 20 consists of excerpts from a deposition of Stephen Gray. The ¦ ¦¦¦contents of the deposition include discussions of Gray's background, ¦ ¦¦¦explanation about patent prosecution history, and even the index from the ¦ ¦¦¦deposition. Samsung has failed to make a particularized showing of how ¦ ¦¦¦these types of nonconfidential information would be detrimental to it if ¦ ¦¦¦the entire deposition were not sealed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibits 21 and 22 are exhibits to Samsung's Patent L.R. 3-1 disclosures.¦ ¦¦¦Exhibit 21includes descriptions of publicly available features of Apple ¦ ¦¦¦devices that Samsung alleged infringed its patents. Exhibit 22 includes ¦ ¦¦¦descriptions of Apple device functionality, which are available from ¦ ¦¦¦Apple's website, and device compliance with standards set by the European ¦ ¦¦¦Telecommunications Standards Institute. Because this information is not ¦ ¦¦¦confidential, it is not appropriate for sealing. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 23 contains excerpts from an expert report from Woodward Yang ¦ ¦¦¦regarding Samsung's infringement of Apple's patents. Samsung offers no ¦ ¦¦¦supporting declaration for its proposed redactions. Apple seeks to redact ¦ ¦¦¦information about how many of its components it buys from Samsung; ¦ ¦¦¦references to its responses regarding what operating systems are available ¦ ¦¦¦in its products and how much the programs differ; and publicly available ¦ ¦¦¦features from its devices. Apple has not made a particularized showing of ¦ ¦¦¦how this information would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 24 contains an excerpt from an expert report by Tim Williams ¦ ¦¦¦regarding Apple's infringement of Samsung's patents. Samsung offers no ¦ ¦¦¦supporting declaration for its proposed redactions. Apple seeks to redact ¦ ¦¦¦Williams' opinion about whether its products practice Samsung's patents and¦ ¦¦¦whether its products comply with certain network standards. Apple has not ¦ ¦¦¦made a particularized showing that this information would be detrimental if¦ ¦¦¦revealed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 25 consists of Samsung's boilerplate responses and objections to ¦ ¦¦¦Apple's interrogatories. Samsung has not identified any confidential ¦ ¦¦¦information in these responses. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 26 consists of an expert report by Sam Lucente. The report ¦ ¦¦¦includes Lucente's background and discussion of legal standards, so sealing¦ ¦¦¦the exhibit in its entirety is inappropriate. The proposed redactions ¦ ¦¦¦include a public announcement of the iPhone, comparison of publicly ¦ ¦¦¦available features on Samsung and Apple devices, and comparisons to other ¦ ¦¦¦companies' devices. Samsung has failed to provide a particularized showing ¦ ¦¦¦that this information would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 27 is an expert report by Itay Sherman. Samsung's proposed ¦ ¦¦¦redactions include publicly available patent descriptions, pictures of ¦ ¦¦¦publicly available devices, and comparisons of those devices with Apple's ¦ ¦¦¦products. Apple's proposed redactions likewise include comparisons of ¦ ¦¦¦Apple's devices with other companies' devices and explanations of the ¦ ¦¦¦benefits and obviousness of design choices. Neither party has made a ¦ ¦¦¦particularized showing that this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦¦disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Neither party has provided a supporting declaration for Exhibit 28. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 29 is a corrected rebuttal expert report from Sam Lucente. ¦ ¦¦¦Samsung's proposed redactions include Lucente's opinions about whether the ¦ ¦¦¦publicly available features of Samsung and Apple devices are similar and ¦ ¦¦¦whether one infringes the other's trademark. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦¦¦particularized showing of how this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦¦revealed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Neither party has provided a supporting declaration for Exhibit 30. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 31 consists of the table of contents from the corrected expert ¦ ¦¦¦report from Michael Wagner. Samsung has not identified how the listing of ¦ ¦¦¦sections in Wagner's report would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦¦¦• Exhibit 34 consists of an email attaching a copy of a supplemental expert¦ ¦¦¦report from Michael Wagner. Samsung seeks to redact the entire contents of ¦ ¦¦¦the report, which contains Wagner's responses to Apple's criticisms about ¦ ¦¦¦Samsung's production of financial information. Samsung ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦has not made a particularized showing how ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosure of these descriptions of its financial ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information production would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. Apple seeks to redact descriptions of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦financial data it produced and how it records its ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦financial data. Both parties seek to redact charts¦ ¦ ¦ ¦with information about their revenues, expenses, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and profits. Neither party, however, has provided ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a particularized showing how this financial ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 35 consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Michael Wagner. The excerpts ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦primarily consist of descriptions of Wagner's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦methodology in calculating damages for Apple. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung has not made a particularized showing of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦how that information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 38 consists of Samsung's responses to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's fifth set of interrogatories. Many of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦responses include boilerplate objections and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦references to other documents. Samsung also ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦produced its prior art contentions. Samsung has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not made a particularized showing of how this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦For the reasons below, Samsung's request to redact¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 6 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 6 is a copy of Appendix 3 to Gray's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦expert report. The proposed redactions contain ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦references to Mitsubishi technology that is not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidential. Source code references, however, are¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proprietary and therefore appropriately may be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sealed. Samsung may move to seal narrowly tailored¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redactions of only the source code references. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦For the reasons below, Samsung's requests to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 7, 8, 9, and 10 are GRANTED ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits 7, 8, 9,²⁷ and 10 contain source code¦ ¦ ¦ ¦from the DiamondTouch technology. Source code is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proprietary and therefore appropriately may be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sealed. ¦ +---+----------------------+--------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦unredacted version of ¦DENIED. Samsung's request is not narrowly ¦ ¦965¦Samsung's Motion to ¦tailored. The information Apple seeks to redact ¦ ¦ ¦Enforce April 12, 2012¦includes references to employees' positions at the¦ ¦ ¦Order ("Motion to ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

27 Samsung did not include a supporting statement in its declaration for Exhibit 9. See Docket No. 975. Because the court observes that Exhibit 9 contains source code from a third party, the court will permit sealing of the exhibit absent a declaration.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦ ¦company, which is publicly available, and Apple has ¦ ¦¦Enforce") ¦failed to provide a particularized showing of how this¦ ¦¦ ¦information would be harmful if disclosed. ¦ ++---------------------+------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦The requests to seal the following exhibits in their ¦ ¦¦ ¦entirety are DENIED. As explained below, the requests ¦ ¦¦ ¦are not narrowly tailored to information for which ¦ ¦¦ ¦Apple provided a particularized showing that specific ¦ ¦¦ ¦harm will result if the information is made publicly ¦ ¦¦ ¦available. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 12 is a deposition of Andrew Bright and ¦ ¦¦ ¦includes information about how he was hired by Apple ¦ ¦¦ ¦and information about his department's organization ¦ ¦¦ ¦and function. Apple has not shown how this information¦ ¦¦ ¦would be harmful if revealed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 13 contains excerpts from a deposition of ¦ ¦¦ ¦Dan Rosckes and includes substantial introductory ¦ ¦¦ ¦information, the names of Apple employees and their ¦ ¦¦ ¦positions in the company, and those employees' ¦ ¦¦ ¦responsibilities. Apple has not shown how this ¦ ¦¦ ¦information would be harmful if revealed. Many of the ¦ ¦¦ ¦names and positions are also publicly available. ¦ ¦¦Exhibits 12-22 to the¦ ¦ ¦¦Declaration of Diane ¦• Exhibit 14 contains excerpts from a deposition of ¦ ¦¦C. Hutnyan ISO Motion¦Mark Buckley and includes substantial introductory ¦ ¦¦to Enforce ¦information and references to employees with whom he ¦ ¦¦ ¦discussed certain documents. Apple has not shown how ¦ ¦¦ ¦this information would be harmful if revealed. None of¦ ¦¦ ¦Apple's cost information is disclosed; Buckley only ¦ ¦¦ ¦references spreadsheets and agreements. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 15 consists of excerpts from a deposition of¦ ¦¦ ¦Frederick Lancaster. The testimony references ¦ ¦¦ ¦spreadsheets that contain financial information about ¦ ¦¦ ¦publicly released Apple products. Apple has not shown ¦ ¦¦ ¦how these broad descriptions would be harmful if ¦ ¦¦ ¦revealed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 16 consists of excerpts from a deposition of¦ ¦¦ ¦Louie Sanguinetti. He discusses how iPhones needed to ¦ ¦¦ ¦meet industry cellphone standards that are publicly ¦ ¦¦ ¦known. Apple has not shown how this information would ¦ ¦¦ ¦be harmful if revealed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 17 contains excerpts from a deposition of ¦ ¦¦ ¦Stephen Lemay. He discusses his role in the ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦Human Interface Group and references ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦publicly available features of various ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iPhone models. He also discusses his ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦background and Apple's organizational ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦business structure. Apple has not shown how ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this information would be harmful if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revealed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 18 contains excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Achim Pantfoerder. Although he¦ ¦ ¦ ¦uses internal code names, his testimony ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦includes descriptions of publicly available ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iPhone features. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 19 consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Emilie Kim. Apple's proposed ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redactions primarily contain references to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Kim's teammates on the photo and camera ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦application team. Apple has not shown how ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosure of these names would be harmful ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦or how competitors could use it to Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disadvantage. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 20 contains excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Michael Matas. His testimony ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦describes how Apple executives gave feedback¦ ¦ ¦ ¦regarding Apple prototypes, and he describes¦ ¦ ¦ ¦publicly available iPhone features. Apple ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦has not shown how this information would be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦harmful if disclosed or could be used to its¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disadvantage. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 21 consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Kristin Bauerly. The testimony¦ ¦ ¦ ¦includes descriptions of publicly available ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iPhone touch screen features. Apple has not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦shown how disclosure of this information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦would be harmful. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 22 consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Eric Jue. His testimony ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦includes descriptions of publicly available ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iPhone touchscreen features and descriptions¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of press release reviews. Apple has not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦shown how this information would be harmful ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦if disclosed. ¦ +---+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦version of the Supplemental ¦DENIED. Apple does not maintain a claim of ¦ ¦984¦Declaration of Christopher ¦confidentiality on any of the contents of ¦ ¦ ¦E. Price ISO Samsung's ¦the declaration.²⁸ ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Strike Expert ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Reports ¦ ¦ +---+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The requests to seal Exhibits 1 through 5 in¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 1-5 to the Price ¦their entirety are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦The exhibits consist of license agreements ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between Apple and third-party licensors. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Although pricing ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

28 See Docket No. 1038.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦terms, royalty rates, and minimum payment terms ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦properly may be sealed,²⁹ Apple has failed to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦show particularized harm that would result if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦other information in the licensing agreements ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦were disclosed. Apple may bring another motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that is narrowly tailored to the licensing terms¦ ¦ ¦ ¦or that provides a particularized showing of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦harm that would result if other details from the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦licensing terms were disclosed. ¦ +----+-----------------------+------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's request to seal Exhibit A is DENIED ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Exhibit A consists of an ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit A to the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of Marc J. ¦expert report by Ravin Balakrishnan describing ¦ ¦ ¦Pernick ISO Apple's ¦the ways in which Samsung's devices infringe ¦ ¦986 ¦Opposition to Samsung's¦Apple's patents. Although source code references¦ ¦ ¦Motion for ¦in the report may be redacted as proprietary ¦ ¦ ¦Clarification Regarding¦information, Exhibit A includes nonconfidential ¦ ¦ ¦the Court's May 4, 2012¦information including descriptions of publicly ¦ ¦ ¦Order ¦available features of the Samsung devices. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung may file another motion with narrowly ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦tailored proposed redactions of the source code ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦references in the report. ¦ +----+-----------------------+------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The court determined in its order regarding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's underlying motion that neither party had¦ ¦ ¦ ¦provided compelling reasons to keep the papers, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the declarations, or the exhibits referenced in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the order ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under seal.³⁰ Having thoroughly reviewed the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦documents again and finding they concern ¦ ¦ ¦Various Exhibits and ¦primarily descriptions of various Samsung ¦ ¦ ¦Declarations in support¦employees' positions, duties, email retention ¦ ¦ ¦of Samsung's Opposition¦practices, and Samsung's business structure, the¦ ¦987 ¦to Apple's Motion for ¦court reaffirms that holding here. As to ¦ ¦ ¦an Adverse Jury ¦Samsung's responses to Apple's interrogatories ¦ ¦ ¦Instruction for ¦revealing release dates and Apple's and ¦ ¦ ¦Spoliation ¦Samsung's identification of search terms for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦custodians and Samsung's email retention ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦directions, neither party has provided ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularized harm amounting to good cause for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this information to remain sealed. The court ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦therefore DENIES the requests to seal or redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦any portions of Samsung's opposition to Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦motion for the adverse jury instruction or to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦seal or redact any declarations or exhibits ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦attached to the opposition. ¦ +----+-----------------------+------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦unredacted version of ¦ ¦ ¦990 ¦the Corrected ¦DENIED. Apple does not maintain a claim of ¦ ¦(see¦Supplemental ¦confidentiality on any of the contents of the ¦ ¦984)¦Declaration of ¦declaration.³¹ ¦ ¦ ¦Christopher E. Price ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ISO Samsung's Motion to¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Strike Expert Reports ¦ ¦ +----+-----------------------+------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 1-5 to the ¦The requests to seal Exhibits 1 through 5 in ¦ ¦ ¦Price Declaration ¦their entirety are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exhibits consist of license agreements between ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

29 See In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569-70; see also Docket No. 1649.

30 See Docket No. 1321 at 2 n.4.

31 See Docket No. 1038.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple and third-party licensors. Although ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦pricing terms, royalty rates, and minimum ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦payment terms properly may be sealed,³² ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple has failed to show particularized harm ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that would result if other information in the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦licensing agreements were disclosed. Apple may¦ ¦ ¦ ¦bring another motion that is narrowly tailored¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to the licensing terms or that provides a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularized showing of harm that would ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦result if other details from the licensing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦terms were disclosed. ¦ +---+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's request on Apple's behalf to redact ¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦portions of the declaration is DENIED. The ¦ ¦ ¦version of the Second ¦proposed redactions consist of references to ¦ ¦994¦Supplemental Declaration ¦patent license agreement between Apple and ¦ ¦ ¦of Christopher E. Price ¦third parties but do not include any details ¦ ¦ ¦ISO Samsung's motion to ¦of those license agreements. Apple has not ¦ ¦ ¦Strike Expert Reports ¦made a particularized showing that these ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦references would be harmful if revealed. ¦ +---+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's request on Apple's behalf to redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦portions of Exhibit A is DENIED. Exhibit A ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦contains a letter that includes the names of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦third-party licensors that Apple seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact. Apple has not made a particularized ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦showing that disclosure of this information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦would be harmful. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The requests to seal Exhibits B through E in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦their ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits A-E to the Price ¦entirety are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The exhibits consist of license agreements ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between Apple and third-party licensors. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Although pricing terms, royalty rates, and m ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦inimum payment terms may be properly ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sealed,³³ Apple has failed to show ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularized harm that would result if other¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information in the licensing agreements were ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. Apple may bring another motion that¦ ¦ ¦ ¦is narrowly tailored to the licensing terms or¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that provides a particularized showing of harm¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that would result if other details from the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦licensing terms were disclosed. ¦ +---+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's and Samsung's requests to redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦portions of the opposition are DENIED. The ¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦proposed redactions include references to ¦ ¦ ¦version of Apple's ¦Samsung's potential copying of Apple's ¦ ¦996¦Opposition to Samsung's ¦devices, arguments from experts regarding ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Strike Expert ¦whether the devices infringe patents, and the ¦ ¦ ¦Testimony ("Opposition to ¦methodologies used by the damages experts. ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Strike") ¦Neither party has made a particularized ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦showing of how this information would be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦detrimental if revealed. ¦ +---+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦Because the court has determined Exhibits C ¦ ¦ ¦version of the Declaration¦and D may be sealed, the proposed redactions ¦ ¦ ¦of Michael Maharbiz ISO ¦to the declaration referencing the content of ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to ¦those exhibits ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

32 See In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569-70; see also Docket No. 1649.

33 See In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x at 569-70; see also Docket No. 1649.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦Motion to Strike ¦also may be sealed. Apple's request on Samsung's ¦ ¦¦ ¦behalf is GRANTED. ¦ ++---------------------+------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦Exhibits C and D are descriptions of Atmel Corp.'s ¦ ¦¦Exhibits C and D to ¦touchscreen technology given to Samsung pursuant to a ¦ ¦¦Maharbiz Declaration ¦nondisclosure agreement. In light of the proprietary ¦ ¦¦ ¦nature of the content of the exhibits, Apple's request¦ ¦¦ ¦on Samsung's behalf is GRANTED. ¦ ++---------------------+------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦Apple's request to seal the declaration in its ¦ ¦¦ ¦entirety is DENIED. The declaration includes a table ¦ ¦¦Declaration of Terry ¦with the identities of parties with whom Apple has ¦ ¦¦L. Musika ISO ¦licensing agreements but does not disclose any ¦ ¦¦Opposition to Motion ¦confidential terms of those agreements. Apple has not ¦ ¦¦to Strike ¦made a particularized showing of how revelation of the¦ ¦¦ ¦third parties would create a disadvantage for Apple ¦ ¦¦ ¦through its competitors' use. ¦ ++---------------------+------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦The request to seal Exhibit A is DENIED because it is ¦ ¦¦ ¦not narrowly tailored. The exhibit consists of a ¦ ¦¦ ¦rebuttal expert report from Terry Musika in which he ¦ ¦¦ ¦criticizes the methodology of Samsung's damages expert¦ ¦¦ ¦and Musika's qualifications for which it fails to ¦ ¦¦ ¦provide a particularized showing of harm that would ¦ ¦¦ ¦result if that information were revealed. Licensing ¦ ¦¦ ¦information such as pricing terms, royalty rates, and ¦ ¦¦ ¦minimum payment terms properly may be sealed, however,¦ ¦¦ ¦and so the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the request.¦ ¦¦ ¦Apple may bring another motion requesting redactions ¦ ¦¦ ¦narrowly tailored to those types of terms. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦The court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦Exhibits A, B, and C ¦Apple's request to seal Exhibit B. The exhibit ¦ ¦¦to the Musika ¦contains information for which Apple has not provided ¦ ¦¦Declaration ¦a particularized showing of harm if revealed, such as ¦ ¦¦ ¦explanations of various damages methodologies and the ¦ ¦¦ ¦number of units sold. Because licensing information ¦ ¦¦ ¦such as pricing terms, royalty rates, and minimum ¦ ¦¦ ¦payment terms properly may be sealed, however, Apple ¦ ¦¦ ¦may bring another motion requesting redactions ¦ ¦¦ ¦narrowly tailored to those types of terms. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦Apple's request to seal Exhibit C is DENIED. The ¦ ¦¦ ¦exhibit consists of excerpts from a deposition of Mark¦ ¦¦ ¦Buckley in which he discusses Apple's general capacity¦ ¦¦ ¦to make and sell its devices. He does not disclose ¦ ¦¦ ¦specific information about capacity cycles.³⁴ Apple ¦ ¦¦ ¦has not made a particularized showing of how this ¦ ¦¦ ¦information would put it at a disadvantage to its ¦ ¦¦ ¦competitors if it was revealed. ¦ ++---------------------+------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦Confidential, ¦ ¦ ¦¦unredacted version of¦Apple's request is DENIED. The proposed redactions ¦ ¦¦the Declaration of ¦include only a reference to the number of licenses to ¦ ¦¦Marc J. Pernick ISO ¦which Apple has been a party, and Apple ¦ ¦¦Opposition to Motion ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

34 See Docket No. 1649.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦to Strike ¦has not made a particularized showing that this information would¦ ¦¦ ¦be detrimental if revealed. ¦ ++----------+-----------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦For the reasons below, Apple's and Samsung's requests to seal ¦ ¦¦ ¦Exhibits 1-7, 9, 10, 13-15, 18, 20, 22, and 29-32 are DENIED ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibits 1 and 2 consist of Samsung's supplemental objections ¦ ¦¦ ¦and responses to Apple's sixteenth set of interrogatories. The ¦ ¦¦ ¦responses include boilerplate objections, Bates numbers, and the ¦ ¦¦ ¦names of touchscreen vendors. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦¦ ¦particularized showing of how this information would be harmful ¦ ¦¦ ¦if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Apple's request on Samsung's behalf to seal Exhibit 3 in its ¦ ¦¦ ¦entirety is not narrowly tailored. Exhibit 3 is an excerpt from a¦ ¦¦ ¦deposition of Michel Maharbiz in which he discusses a tear down ¦ ¦¦ ¦of Samsung's devices. The deposition includes lengthy passages ¦ ¦¦ ¦regarding Maharbiz's qualifications, the qualifications of the ¦ ¦¦ ¦people he had perform the tear down and some of the publicly ¦ ¦¦ ¦available features of the device. Samsung has not provided a ¦ ¦¦Exhibits ¦particularized showing that this information would be detrimental¦ ¦¦1-7, 9, ¦if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦10, 13-15,¦ ¦ ¦¦18, 20-32 ¦• Exhibit 4 consists of excerpts from a deposition of Brian Von ¦ ¦¦ ¦Herzen in which he discusses what sources he used in compiling ¦ ¦¦ ¦his expert report. He references documents given to him by ¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung but does not reveal their contents. Samsung has not ¦ ¦¦ ¦provided a particularized showing what harm will occur if the ¦ ¦¦ ¦contents are disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibits 5 and 6 consist of Apple's objections and responses to¦ ¦¦ ¦several of Samsung's interrogatories. The contents primarily ¦ ¦¦ ¦consist of boilerplate objections and references to Bates ¦ ¦¦ ¦numbered documents. Apple has not provided a particularized ¦ ¦¦ ¦showing of how this content would be harmful if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 7 consists of excerpts from a deposition of Sanjay Sood¦ ¦¦ ¦in which he discusses Apple's consumer surveys to determine the ¦ ¦¦ ¦drive for its device's various features. The exhibit primarily ¦ ¦¦ ¦consists of a deposition index and Apple has not provided any ¦ ¦¦ ¦showing that disclosure of the index would be detrimental. As for¦ ¦¦ ¦the content of the deposition, most of Sood's discussion ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦relates to hypothetical categories and how he developed his survey. Apple ¦ ¦¦has not made a particularized showing of how this information would be ¦ ¦¦detrimental if revealed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Exhibit 9 is an excerpt from an expert report by Woodward Yang regarding ¦ ¦¦Apple's infringement of Samsung's patents. Apple seeks to redact portions ¦ ¦¦describing its use of Samsung components in its devices, information about ¦ ¦¦the operating systems in its devices, and its arguments regarding whether ¦ ¦¦its products infringe. Apple has not made a particularized showing of how ¦ ¦¦this information would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Exhibit 10 is a copy of an expert report from Tony Givargis regarding ¦ ¦¦invalidity of one of Samsung's patents. Samsung's proposed redactions ¦ ¦¦include a description of its delay in providing certain information to ¦ ¦¦Givargis and references to whether a Sony Ericsson device was released prior¦ ¦¦to its patent filing. Neither of these types of information is appropriate ¦ ¦¦for sealing. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Neither party submitted a supporting declaration for Exhibit 13. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Exhibit 14 is a letter between Apple's and Samsung's counsel regarding ¦ ¦¦Samsung's production of documents in discovery. Samsung has not identified ¦ ¦¦how descriptions of its discovery would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Neither party submitted a supporting declaration for Exhibit 15. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Exhibit 18 consists of an excerpt from an Apple response to a Samsung ¦ ¦¦interrogatory. Apple's proposed redactions consist of information about the ¦ ¦¦initial practice of its patent and the prosecution history. Apple has not ¦ ¦¦made a particularized showing that this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Exhibits 20 and 22 consist of letters between Apple's and Samsung's ¦ ¦¦counsel regarding clawback of privileged documents. Apple has not provided a¦ ¦¦particularized showing that this information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦revealed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦• Exhibit 30 consists of an excerpt from a deposition of Vincent O'Brien in ¦ ¦¦which he discusses his methodology in analyzing Apple's ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦licensing agreements. He does not reveal the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦content of any of the agreements, and Apple ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦has not made a particularized showing of harm ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that would occur if O'Brien's methodology were¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revealed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 31 consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Michael J. Wagner in which he ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦discussed his methodology and his sources for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦determining Apple's damages. Apple has not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦made a particularized showing of how this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be detrimental if revealed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 32 consists of excerpts from an ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦expert report from Michael Wagner. The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦excerpts consist of a table of contents of the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦report and excerpts criticizing Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦damages expert's methodology and referencing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦publicly available earnings disclosures by ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple. Apple has not made a particularized ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦showing that this information would be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦detrimental if revealed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦For the reasons below, requests to seal the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦following exhibits are DENIED WITHOUT ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PREJUDICE. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibits 23-28 are various license ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreements between Apple and third parties. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple has not provided a particularized ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦showing of harm that requires sealing entire ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreements, but licensing information such as ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦pricing terms, royalty rates, and minimum ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦payment terms properly may be sealed. Apple ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦may bring another motion requesting redactions¦ ¦ ¦ ¦narrowly tailored to those types of terms. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦For the reasons below, the request to seal the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦following exhibits are GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 21 includes tables with iPhone ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦related royalty payments, which appropriately ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦may be sealed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 29 contains excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Tony Blevins regarding Apple's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦supply chain for its devices. He discusses ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦specific details regarding Apple's capacity, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦which may be sealed in light of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦competitive harm that could ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦result.³⁵ ¦ +----+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential Portions of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's Opposition to ¦Apple's request to redact a portion of the ¦ ¦1041¦Samsung's Motion to ¦motion is DENIED. Samsung failed to provide a ¦ ¦ ¦Enforce April 12, 2012 ¦declaration supporting the redaction. ¦ ¦ ¦Order ("Opposition to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

35 See Docket No. 1649.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Enforce") ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's request to redact portions of Exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦1, which consists of Apple's responses to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's interrogatories, is DENIED. The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proposed redactions are manufacturing codes for¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the baseband chips in Apple's products, and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple has not made a particularized showing how¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosure of these codes would be detrimental.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's request to seal Exhibit 2 is DENIED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 2 consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦deposition of Tim Blevins. In the deposition, ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 1, 2, and 7 to ¦he discusses the manufacture and shipment of ¦ ¦ ¦the Declaration of Mia ¦baseband chips Apple uses in its products. That¦ ¦1044¦Mazza ISO Opposition to ¦information is not confidential, and Apple has ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Enforce ¦not made a particularized showing that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosure of the deposition would be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦detrimental. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's request to redact portions of Exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦7, which consists of excerpts from a deposition¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Emilie Kim, is DENIED. The proposed ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redactions include references to Kim's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦education and to Apple's A4 and A5 chips. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Neither of the references is confidential or ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proprietary, and Apple has not made a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularized showing that disclosure of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be detrimental. ¦ +----+------------------------+-----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted¦ ¦ ¦ ¦version of Samsung's ¦The request to seal or redact Samsung's reply ¦ ¦ ¦Reply ISO Samsung's ¦is DENIED. The proposed redactions include ¦ ¦ ¦Motion for Clarification¦references to information the court determines ¦ ¦ ¦of the May 4, 2012 ¦should not be sealed, as explained below. The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redactions, therefore, are not narrowly ¦ ¦ ¦Order ("Reply ISO Motion¦tailored to confidential or proprietary ¦ ¦ ¦for ¦information. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Clarification") ¦ ¦ +----+------------------------+-----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal the declaration in its ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦entirety is DENIED because the request is not ¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted¦narrowly tailored. The declaration includes ¦ ¦ ¦version of the ¦references to Samsung's "blue glow" technology ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of Dr. ¦and whether it infringes Apple's patent. This ¦ ¦ ¦Jeffrey ¦information is not confidential and therefore ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦should not be sealed. ¦ ¦ ¦Johnson ISO Reply ISO ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Motion ¦Samsung's request to redact the declaration is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. The proposed redactions consist of ¦ ¦ ¦for Clarification ¦references to file names where blueglow source ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦code is found. This information is proprietary ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and may remain under seal. ¦ +----+------------------------+-----------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal Exhibit 4 is DENIED because¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the request is not narrowly tailored. Exhibit 4¦ ¦ ¦ ¦consists of excerpts from a deposition of Dr. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Ravin Balakrishnan. He discusses whether ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 4 and 5 to the ¦publicly available features of Samsung products¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of Mark Tung¦and software infringe Apple's patents. This ¦ ¦1047¦ISO Reply ISO Motion for¦information is publicly available and therefore¦ ¦ ¦Clarification ¦not confidential. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal or redact portions of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 5 also is DENIED because it is not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦narrowly tailored. In its supporting ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦declaration, Apple proposes ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦redactions that include details about the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦company's various design groups and their ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦contribution to a publicly available ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦feature of the iPhone. Apple has not made ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a particularized showing of how this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. The court rejects those ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proposed redactions. Apple also seeks to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact references to UIKit classes, but ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this information is publicly available and¦ ¦ ¦ ¦therefore not confidential.³⁶ ¦ +----+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's request to redact portions of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦reply is not narrowly tailored. Many of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the redactions include references to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exhibits the court has found should not be¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦sealed. The court has already determined, ¦ ¦ ¦version of Apple's Reply ISO ¦however, that the contents of the Lutton ¦ ¦ ¦Motion for Adverse Inference ¦declaration ¦ ¦ ¦Jury Instructions Due to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Spoliation of ¦should remain under seal.³⁷ The court ¦ ¦ ¦Evidence ("Reply ISO Adverse ¦DENIES ¦ ¦ ¦Jury Instructions") ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦WITHOUT PREJUDICE the request to redact. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple may bring another motion requesting ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redactions narrowly tailored to references¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to the Lutton declaration. ¦ +----+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's request on Samsung's behalf to ¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦seal or redact portions of the declaration¦ ¦ ¦version of the Reply ¦is DENIED. The court has determined that ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of Esther Kim ISO¦none of the exhibits supporting the ¦ ¦ ¦Reply ISO Adverse Jury ¦declaration should be sealed, and so ¦ ¦ ¦Instructions ¦references to those exhibits in the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦declaration likewise should not be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redacted. ¦ +----+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's requests on Samsung's behalf to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦seal the following exhibits are not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦narrowly tailored to proprietary ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information or to information for which ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung has provided a particularized ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦showing of harm if disclosed. The requests¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are DENIED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 1 consists of Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦designation of discovery custodians, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦search terms, and instructions regarding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦preservation. Samsung's request is not ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 1-11 to the Kim ¦narrowly tailored because it seeks to seal¦ ¦1056¦Declaration ¦information such as search terms drawn ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦from publicly available patents. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 2 consists of Samsung's amended ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦identification of custodians, litigation ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦hold notices and search terms. Samsung has¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not made a particularized showing of how ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the identities of its custodians or the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦search terms used would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revealed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦• Exhibit 3 consists of Samsung's first ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦amended and supplemental identification of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦custodians, ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

36 See UIGestureRecognizer Class Reference, http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIGestureRecognizer_Cla ss/Reference/Reference.html (last visited Jan. 2, 2013); UIKit Framework Reference, http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIKit_Framework/_index. html (last visited Jan. 2, 2013).

37 See Docket No. 126.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦ ¦litigation hold notices, and search term, ¦ ¦¦ ¦including nearly 200 pages of the beginning ¦ ¦¦ ¦and end Bates numbers for its custodians. ¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung has not made a particularized showing ¦ ¦¦ ¦of how information relating to its discovery ¦ ¦¦ ¦notices to its employees, the custodians ¦ ¦¦ ¦identified, or the Bates numbers associated ¦ ¦¦ ¦with its production would be detrimental if ¦ ¦¦ ¦revealed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 4 consists of a chart summarizing ¦ ¦¦ ¦Apple's and Samsung's contentions about ¦ ¦¦ ¦discovery production. The information ¦ ¦¦ ¦primarily explains custodians' names, what ¦ ¦¦ ¦documents Apple thought should be produced and¦ ¦¦ ¦what documents were actually produced. Samsung¦ ¦¦ ¦has not identified what harm it would suffer ¦ ¦¦ ¦if this information were disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 5 is a table Apple composed ¦ ¦¦ ¦summarizing production from one of Samsung's ¦ ¦¦ ¦custodians. The table includes descriptions of¦ ¦¦ ¦the comparisons of publicly available devices ¦ ¦¦ ¦but does not reveal any proprietary ¦ ¦¦ ¦information. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦¦ ¦particularized showing of how disclosure of ¦ ¦¦ ¦this information would be detrimental. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9 are letters between ¦ ¦¦ ¦Apple's and Samsung's counsel regarding ¦ ¦¦ ¦whether Samsung de-duplicated its email ¦ ¦¦ ¦production. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦¦ ¦particularized showing of how this information¦ ¦¦ ¦would be detrimental if disclosed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦• Exhibit 10 is an email from one of Samsung's¦ ¦¦ ¦custodians. In it, he discusses development of¦ ¦¦ ¦Samsung's devices. Samsung has not made a ¦ ¦¦ ¦particularized showing of how this information¦ ¦¦ ¦would be detrimental if revealed. ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦Exhibit 11 consists of excerpts from a ¦ ¦¦ ¦deposition of Dongsub Kim. The excerpts ¦ ¦¦ ¦concern to what degree Samsung used other ¦ ¦¦ ¦devices, including the iPhone, to aid in its ¦ ¦¦ ¦development of its devices. Samsung has not ¦ ¦¦ ¦made a particularized showing that this ¦ ¦¦ ¦information would be detrimental if revealed. ¦ ++-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------¦ ¦¦ ¦Apple's request on Samsung's behalf to redact ¦ ¦¦Confidential, unredacted ¦portions of the declaration is DENIED. The ¦ ¦¦version of the Reply ¦proposed redactions consist of references to a¦ ¦¦Declaration of Marc J. ¦spreadsheet with Samsung's financial data and ¦ ¦¦Pernick ISO Apple's Motion to¦limited details from that spreadsheet. Samsung¦ ¦¦Strike Portions of Samsung's ¦has not made a particularized showing of how ¦ ¦¦Expert Reports ¦disclosure of this limited financial ¦ ¦¦ ¦information would be detrimental. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's request on Samsung's behalf to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦seal Exhibit 10 is DENIED. Exhibit 10 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦contains a spreadsheet with financial ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 10 to the Pernick ¦data from 2010 and 2011 about Samsung's ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦profits and losses. Samsung has not made ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a particularized showing of how this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revealed. ¦ +----+------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Apple's request on Samsung's behalf to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦seal Exhibit 11 is DENIED. Like Exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦10, Exhibit 11 contains a spreadsheet ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 11 to the Pernick ¦with financial data about Samsung's ¦ ¦1067¦Declaration ¦profits and losses. And as with Exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦10, Samsung has failed to make a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦particularized showing of how this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information would be detrimental if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revealed. ¦ +----+------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦DENIED. Because Apple does not maintain a¦ ¦ ¦version of the Declaration of ¦claim of confidentiality regarding ¦ ¦ ¦Brian von Herzen ISO Samsung's¦exhibits to the von Herzen declaration, ¦ ¦ ¦Reply ISO Motion to Strike ¦any references to that information is not¦ ¦ ¦Expert Testimony Based on ¦confidential and should not be ¦ ¦ ¦Undisclosed Facts and Theories¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sealed.³⁸ ¦ +----+------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦1074¦Exhibits 4-6 to the von Herzen¦DENIED. Apple does not maintain a claim ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦of confidentiality over Exhibits 4-6.³⁹ ¦ +----+------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal the declaration in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦its entirety is DENIED. Because Apple ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦does not maintain a claim of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidentiality regarding exhibits to the¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦Darrell declaration, any references to ¦ ¦ ¦version of the Declaration of ¦that information is not confidential and ¦ ¦ ¦Trevor Darrell ISO Samsung's ¦should not be sealed.⁴⁰ ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Strike Expert ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Testimony Based on Undisclosed¦Samsung's request for redactions is also ¦ ¦ ¦Facts and Theories ¦DENIED. The proposed redactions consist ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦primarily of information and details from¦ ¦ ¦ ¦various patents, which are publicly ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦available documents. The information, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦therefore, should not be sealed. ¦ +----+------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The requests to seal the exhibits are ¦ ¦1088¦Exhibits D and E to the ¦DENIED. Apple does not maintain a claim ¦ ¦ ¦Darrell Declaration ¦of confidentiality over Exhibits D and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦E.⁴¹ ¦ +----+------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The request to seal or redact portions of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's reply is DENIED. Because the ¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦court has determined none of the ¦ ¦ ¦version of Samsung's Reply ISO¦supporting exhibits require sealing, any ¦ ¦ ¦Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions ¦references to those exhibits in the reply¦ ¦ ¦for Apple's Violation of ¦likewise should not be sealed. Neither ¦ ¦ ¦December 22, 2011 Order ¦Apple nor Samsung has made any other ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦showing that information in the reply ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦would be harmful if revealed. ¦ +----+------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Unredacted version of ¦The request to redact portions of the ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's Motion to Compel ¦motion is GRANTED. Samsung's request is ¦ ¦2141¦Depositions of Apple's Reply ¦narrowly tailored to descriptions of its ¦ ¦ ¦Expert Declarants ¦source code operation, which is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proprietary information. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

38 See Docket No. 1098.

39 See id.

40 See id.

41 See id.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's requests to seal Exhibits 7-9 and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦11-13 are DENIED because Apple does not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦maintain a claim of confidentiality for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦those documents.⁴² ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's request to seal or redact portions¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Exhibit 10 also is DENIED. Exhibit 10 ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 7-13 to the Reply ¦consists of excerpts from a deposition of ¦ ¦2149¦Declaration of Diance C. ¦Daniele De Iuliis. In its supporting ¦ ¦ ¦Hutnyan ISO the motion ¦declaration, Apple seeks to redact portions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of the deposition describing whether ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦alternative designs for the corners of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦original iPhone were considered.⁴³ Apple ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦has failed to make a particularized showing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that this information would be harmful if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed. The information is not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proprietary nor does it reveal details about¦ ¦ ¦ ¦unreleased products. ¦ +----+---------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Confidential, unredacted ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦version of Apple's ¦The request to redact versions of the ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to Samsung's ¦opposition is DENIED because Samsung does ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Compel ¦not maintain a claim of confiden4iality over¦ ¦ ¦Depositions and to File ¦any of the information in the ¦ ¦ ¦Supplemental Brief in ¦opposition.⁴⁴ ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to Permanent ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Injunction ¦ ¦ +----+---------------------------+--------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 4 to the ¦The request to redact portions of Exhibit 4 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of ¦is GRANTED. The requested redactions are ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Samsung's recent sales figures for its ¦ ¦ ¦Erik J. Olson ISO Apple's ¦Galaxy Tab, and Samsung explains that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information about recent sales figures may ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to Samsung's ¦allow competitors to modify their pricing ¦ ¦ ¦Motion to Compel ¦and marketing strategies. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

42 See Docket No. 1108.

43 See id. Ex. C.

44 See Docket No. 2163.
--------

The court orders the parties to file within fourteen days documents that comply with the court's determinations above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge