In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 18-cv-01885-HSG LITIGATION 8 ORDER REGARDING ASUS’S AND 9 PHILIPS’S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL This Document Relates To: SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 10 DAUBERT MOTIONS ALL ACTIONS 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 724, 751, 711, 713, 766, 742 12 13 14 On this date, the Court entered an Order, under seal, that granted in part and denied in part 15 ASUS’s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 724) and denied Philips’s motion for 16 partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 751). The Court separately entered an Order, under seal, 17 addressing the parties’ Daubert motions. Dkt. Nos. 711, 713, 766, 742. Each of these Orders 18 contains information the parties sought to be sealed in their briefing. 19 In light of the “strong presumption in favor of [public] access,” the Court will file an 20 unsealed version of these Orders no later than May 13, 2020. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The summary judgment Order will not be 22 redacted unless the parties file a joint statement by May 6, 2020 articulating compelling reasons to 23 seal portions of the Order that outweigh the public interest in disclosure. See id. The statement 24 shall attach a proposed redacted version of the Order. As to the Daubert Order, the parties 25 (including any third party) may meet and confer and file a joint statement by May 6, 2020 26 identifying any portion of the Order for which good cause to seal exists. The statement shall 27 articulate specific harm or prejudice that will occur if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. 1 redacted version of the Order shall be attached. 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 13, 2020 6 7 7 Maspureed f hd, 4} HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 9 10 11 13 © 15 Q 16 = 17 5 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28