Lenovo Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG

Background

Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Motorola Mobility, LLC moved to seal excerpts of their amended complaint that IPCom had designated as confidential. IPCom argued that the excerpts contained business information whose disclosure could harm its competitive position, particularly information about confidential licensing negotiations.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are generally presumed to be open to the public. Because the amended complaint was more than tangentially related to the underlying dispute, the parties seeking secrecy had to show compelling reasons supported by specific facts that outweighed the public’s interest in access. The party that designated the material as confidential also had to explain the private or public interests supporting sealing, the harm that would result from disclosure, and why a less restrictive option would not be sufficient.

Court’s analysis

The court found compelling reasons to seal information concerning the specific details and substance of IPCom’s licensing negotiations. It identified licensing demands, negotiation materials and communications, business statistics, pricing terms, royalty rates, guaranteed minimum payments, and related financial or strategic information as the type of information that could harm a party’s competitive standing if disclosed.

The court rejected broader redactions based only on the fact that an excerpt quoted a document or deposition designated as confidential. It found that the following types of information were not sufficiently sensitive: the fact that Motorola was known to be a company in Chicago; general information about Roger Ross’s duties and licensing authority; the general purpose of the licensing negotiations; the roles and representative capacities of people who attended the negotiations; and IPCom’s public position that the patents involved were standard-essential patents and that the plaintiffs infringed them.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. It granted sealing for specified portions of paragraphs 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 40, 58, 61, 64, 65, 68, 69, 73, 74, 76, 83, 84, 86, 90, 91, 93, 94, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, and 129 of the amended complaint. It also granted sealing for specified lines in paragraphs 48, 59, 67, and 89. It denied sealing for portions of paragraphs 27, 36, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 70, 88, 89, 98, 99, 103, 110, 115, and 121 that were not otherwise granted. The plaintiffs were ordered to file a revised redacted version of the amended complaint by July 6, 2022.