In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation

Background

The court stated that it had entered, under seal, an order on ASUS’s motion for partial summary judgment and Philips’s motion for partial summary judgment. It reported that ASUS’s motion was granted in part and denied in part, and that Philips’s motion was denied. The court also entered a separate sealed order addressing the parties’ motions concerning expert testimony under the standard associated with Daubert.

Public access and proposed redactions

The court cited the strong presumption favoring public access to court records and said it would file unsealed versions of the orders no later than May 13, 2020. The summary-judgment order would not be redacted unless the parties filed a joint statement by May 6 explaining compelling reasons to seal portions that outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The joint statement had to include a proposed redacted version.

For the expert-testimony order, the parties, including any third party, could meet and confer and file a joint statement by May 6 identifying portions for which good cause to seal existed. That statement had to describe the specific harm or prejudice that disclosure would cause.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered the order on April 13, 2020. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied a separate sealing motion; it sets the process and deadlines for possible redactions and later unsealing. It also does not disclose the reasoning or substantive issues resolved in the sealed summary-judgment and expert-testimony orders.