In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation

Background

The parties filed a joint renewed administrative motion to file portions of documents under seal. The court had previously granted in part and denied in part earlier sealing motions because the requests were not narrowly limited to confidential or proprietary business information and covered information that appeared elsewhere without redactions.

For documents attached to a dispositive motion, the court explained that parties generally must show “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public’s strong right of access to judicial records. For documents attached to nondispositive motions, the lower “good cause” standard applies, requiring a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific harm or prejudice.

Rulings

The court found that the renewed requests generally narrowed the proposed redactions to confidential and proprietary business information and found good cause to approve them. It granted the redacted portions identified in the public filings for the requests submitted by HTC, Acer, Microsoft, and ASUS.

For Google’s request concerning the Sharret Declaration, the court granted the proposed redactions in paragraphs 52 and 53. It denied the remaining redactions because the requests concerning HTC and Microsoft were substantially overbroad, and the supporting declarations did not explain the specific harm that disclosure would cause. The court also stated that procedural history available on the docket did not qualify as confidential and proprietary business information merely because the parties sought to redact it.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the joint renewed administrative motion to file under seal. It denied sealing as to the Sharret Declaration, except for Google’s approved redactions in paragraphs 52 and 53, and granted sealing as to the remaining documents. Documents covered by granted sealing requests were to remain under seal.

The court gave the parties one more opportunity to file a renewed motion to seal the Sharret Declaration and Exhibits 3, 6, 18, 19, and 28 to the Apgar Declaration. If the parties no longer sought to seal those materials, they were directed to file public, unredacted versions within seven days of the order. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also stated that Google did not need to file another supporting declaration.