Apple Inc. v. Rivos, Inc.

Background

This trade-secrets case was stayed while Apple Inc. and Rivos, Inc. pursued a potential settlement. Several requests to seal or remove previously filed documents remained pending, and the court resolved those requests regardless of whether the case settled.

The court explained that judicial records are generally presumed to be open to the public. For records closely connected to the merits of a case, a party seeking to seal material must provide specific facts showing compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in access. A lower “good cause” standard may apply to discovery material only tangentially related to the underlying dispute. The court also required a specific explanation of the interests supporting sealing and the injury that would result from disclosure.

Rulings on Sealing Requests

Amended Counterclaims

Rivos sought to seal information Apple had designated confidential in Rivos’s amended counterclaims and the related redline. Apple identified portions of paragraphs 5, 43, 44, and 50 as confidential business and technical information and argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm. The court held that the compelling-reasons standard applied because counterclaims are closely connected to the merits. It denied the request because Apple’s descriptions were generic and did not identify a specific injury. The court found that the material appeared to concern ordinary business matters, including employee pay, report titles, and high-level differences between Apple and potential competitors.

Opposition and Reply on the Motion to Dismiss

The court denied Rivos’s request to seal material in its opposition to Apple’s motion to dismiss Rivos’s amended counterclaims because Apple did not timely file the required statement explaining whether it sought sealing and why.

The court also denied Apple’s request to seal material in its reply supporting its motion to dismiss Rivos’s counterclaims because Rivos did not timely file the required statement explaining whether it sought sealing and why.

Motion to Amend the Case Schedule and Related Materials

The court held that the compelling-reasons standard applied to materials filed with Apple’s motion to amend the case schedule. Although the motion was described as non-dispositive, the court found it was more than tangentially related to the merits because its central purpose included allowing Apple to file an amended complaint, and the related dispute concerned pleadings and parties.

The court ruled on 18 categories of materials as follows:

- The requests concerning Apple’s proposed fourth amended complaint and its redline were granted. - The requests concerning deposition excerpts from Chih-Chieh Lee, Ryan Meek, Mahesh Reddy, and Deepak Limaye were granted. The court found compelling reasons to protect technical information asserted as trade secrets and, for some materials, the names of people not otherwise relevant to the litigation. - The request concerning Rivos’s opposition to Apple’s motion to amend the case schedule and complaint was granted in part. The court allowed sealing of specified references to technology asserted as a trade secret and certain narrowly identified terms, but denied sealing for broader references to public GitHub material, United States patents, and Apple employee practices. Some portions were sealed only as to narrower highlighted sections. - The requests concerning Apple’s third, fifth, and sixth updated trade-secret disclosures for discovery were granted because the identified portions directly discussed technology asserted as a trade secret. - The request concerning David Williamson’s deposition excerpts was granted. - The request concerning Stephan Meier’s deposition excerpts was granted in part. The court denied sealing for portions discussing or quoting public patents and granted sealing for portions discussing or characterizing technology asserted as a trade secret. - The requests concerning Muawya Al-Otoom’s and Jean-Didier Allegrucci’s deposition excerpts were granted because the identified material concerned trade-secret technology or confidential design and development information. - The request concerning document APL-RIVOS_00008905–06 was granted in part, limited to the individual’s name and the former employer’s name. - The request concerning document APL-RIVOS_00009348–50 was granted in part. The court allowed sealing of names of individuals and references to specific teams or products in the specified portion, but otherwise denied the request. - The request concerning document APL-RIVOS_00508337–38 was granted to protect names of individuals not otherwise relevant to the case and personal financial information. - The request concerning Exhibit A to Mary Prendergast’s declaration, an email chain between counsel discussing technology asserted as a trade secret, was granted.

Incorrectly Filed Document

After defendants filed an opposition to Apple’s case-schedule motion, Apple notified them that the brief contained information Apple claimed was confidential. Defendants then filed a redacted version and asked the court to remove the original version from the public docket. The court granted that request and directed the Clerk to remove Docket No. 346.

Conclusion and Effect

The court allowed parties whose sealing requests were denied because they had not adequately justified sealing to file renewed motions with updated declarations by March 8, 2024. The stay was lifted in part for that limited purpose. The parties were directed to file the documents on the public docket, with only the redactions permitted by the order, by March 22, 2024, unless a renewed motion to seal was filed by March 8, 2024. The court also reiterated that the motion to remove the incorrectly filed brief was granted.