Scramoge Technology Limited v. Apple Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-03041
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Scramoge Technology v. Apple, Judge Corley ordered that counsel could discuss most license terms orally but could not provide copies or disclose consideration.
Apple, Inc. and Scramoge Technology Limited, particularly Scramoge’s outside counsel and its three designated representatives. The representatives could receive oral disclosures of most license terms but could not receive copies or learn the amount of consideration under this order.
What happened
Scramoge Technology Limited sued Apple, Inc. over patent-infringement claims. Apple argued in a separate summary-judgment motion that it had a license to the patents.
This order addressed a discovery dispute about Apple’s license agreements. Apple showed that public disclosure could harm its confidentiality interests, but it did not show that Scramoge’s three designated representatives, all licensed attorneys, would cause harm by learning the agreements’ terms. The court therefore barred outside counsel from giving the representatives copies, but allowed counsel to discuss and orally disclose all terms except the amount paid, if the representatives signed a protective order.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the order on September 16, 2022, and stated that it disposed of the discovery matter listed as Docket No. 124.
The detailed version
- Scramoge Technology Limited v. Apple Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-03041
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 16, 2022
Background
Apple had moved for summary judgment on Scramoge’s patent-infringement claims, arguing that it held a license to the patents. The order addressed a joint discovery letter concerning Apple’s license agreements.
Apple wanted the unredacted agreements shown only to Scramoge’s outside counsel. It also wanted Scramoge’s three designated representatives to review only paragraphs that Apple identified as relevant.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may issue a protective order for good cause to protect confidential commercial information from being revealed or to limit how it is revealed. The party requesting protection must show that specific harm or prejudice would result without the order. General allegations of harm are not enough.
Ruling
The court found that Apple had shown it would suffer harm if the license agreements were made public and noted that Apple took substantial steps to keep them confidential. But Apple had not shown that harm would result from allowing Scramoge’s three designated representatives—all licensed attorneys—to discuss the full agreements with outside counsel.
The court ordered that Scramoge’s outside counsel could not provide copies of the license agreements to the three representatives. Counsel could, however, discuss and orally disclose all of the agreements’ terms except the amount of consideration, provided that the representatives signed an appropriate protective order.
The order stated that it disposed of Docket No. 124. It did not decide Apple’s separate summary-judgment motion on the patent claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.