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 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 9 SEAL This Document Relates To: 10 ALL ACTIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 710, 711, 712, 713, 722, 724, 11 726, 741, 742, 750, 751, 766, 803, 806, 828, 836, 844, 872, 888, 893, 899 12 13 14 15 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions 16 of documents in connection with motions for partial summary judgment and Daubert motions 17 filed by Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) 18 and Defendants ASUS Computer International and ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (collectively, 19 “ASUS”). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 20 PART the motions to file under seal. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 23 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 24 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 25 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 26 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 27 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 1 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 2 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 3 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 4 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 5 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 6 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 7 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 8 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 9 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 10 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 11 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 12 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 13 to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 14 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 15 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 16 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 17 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 18 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- 19 MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 20 “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 21 Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 22 June 30, 2015). 23 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 24 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 25 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 26 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 27 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 1 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 2 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary 5 judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. The Court applies the 6 lower good cause standard for documents related to the Daubert motions. 7 The parties’ motions demonstrate the burden imposed by overdesignation of 8 confidentiality under a protective order. In many cases, the party seeking to seal does so only 9 because another party or a third party designated entire documents as confidential. E.g., Dkt. No. 10 827-4. The party imposing the designation then files a declaration seeking to seal only a small 11 portion of the document. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 857. Because a designation of confidentiality is not 12 sufficient to establish that a document is sealable, the Court finds sealing unwarranted for the 13 overdesignated portions of the documents unsupported by any declaration. See Civ. L. R. 79- 14 5(d)(1)(A); Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 15 2011) (finding that good cause “cannot be established simply by showing that the document is 16 subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be 17 confidential”); see also Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1). 18 Nevertheless, where the designating party provided a declaration, the Court finds that the 19 parties generally narrowly tailored their requested redactions to confidential and proprietary 20 technical, business, sales, or licensing information. In dispositive motions, the parties have 21 narrowly tailored their redactions to specific source code, which “clearly meets the definition a 22 trade secret.” See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 23 6115623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012). Elsewhere, the parties seek to seal information related 24 to the technical product operation, the existence and terms of confidential licenses and settlement 25 agreements, and information related to business operations. The public release of these documents 26 could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage in developing rival products. See In re Elec. 27 Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents could be 1 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). Thus, the Court finds that 2 the parties have in these circumstances established compelling reasons or good cause to grant the 3 motions to file under seal. See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2016 4 WL 7911651, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016); Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 5 C 12-1971 CW, 2014 WL 6986068 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014). 6 Two exceptions exist and are worth noting. First, the parties seek to seal extensive 7 portions of Philips’s opposition to ASUS’s summary judgment motion and its supporting exhibits. 8 Dkt. No. 836. The Court directly relies on some of the currently-redacted portions and is strongly 9 inclined to make those portions public. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he resolution of a 10 dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in 11 ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process and significant public events.’” 12 (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co.v . U.S. Dist. Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). 13 Although information about technical product operation typically qualifies for protection, much of 14 the information here is already public. In seeking summary judgment, ASUS—correctly and 15 laudably—describes in general terms the operation of the accused products. See Dkt. No. 724 at 16 4:3-18; Dkt. No.895 at 2:25-3:10, 4:16-18. Portions of the materials the parties seek to redact 17 merely describe the same functionality with little, if any, added detail. Those portions are not 18 trade secrets and the parties fail to articulate compelling reasons to keep them sealed. See 19 RESTATEMENT (FIRST) OF TORTS § 757 cmt. b (Am. Law. Inst. 1939) (“The subject matter of a 20 trade secret must be secret.”); cf. Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Grp., Inc., 819 F. Supp. 21 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (“While source code is undoubtedly a trade secret, the way the 22 source code works when compiled and run is not.”).1 23 Second, the parties seek to seal portions of briefing related to ASUS’s and Microsoft’s 24 motion to exclude opinions of Michael E. Tate (damages). Dkt. No. 741. In seeking to seal, the 25 parties go beyond confidential licensing and business information to try to seal the very nature and 26 27 1 For this reason, the Court also rejects sealing of information related to functionality that is 1 form of Mr. Tate’s analysis. The redactions go the heart of Defendants’ motions as they seek to 2 exclude from public view information about the analysis (or lack thereof) that Defendants claim 3 make Dr. Tate’s opinions unreliable. The parties do not cite—and the Court cannot imagine—any 4 case finding good cause to seal such purely litigation related information. Moreover, although the 5 underlying motion is not dispositive, Philips presumably intends to rely on Mr. Tate’s testimony to 6 prove its damages at trial. Thus, although the lower “good cause” standard applies, the Court 7 finds that the parties failed to meet that standard to the extent they seek to seal the form of Mr. 8 Tate’s case-specific analysis that does not implicate otherwise confidential information. 9 Docket No. Document Portion(s) Sought to be Ruling 10 Public / (Sealed) Sealed 11 Dkt. No. 710 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 12 711 / (710-4) Philips’ Motion to Page i:10 DENIED Exclude Untimely Page 4:17-21 (cites portions of 13 Theories in Dr. Page 5:2, 15-20, 24-27 exhibits not properly Dunlop’s Rebuttal Page 6:12-18, 23, 25-28 subject to sealing. 14 Expert Report Page 7:1 See infra discussion Served on Behalf of Page 9:24-25 re: exhibits.) 15 ASUS Concerning Page 10:1-4, 12, 15-17 16 U.S. Patent NO. Page 11:25-27 RE44,913 Page 12:1-2, 5-9, 13, 15-20 17 Page 13:21-22 Page 15:24-26 18 Page 16:1-2, 4-8, 711-3 / (710-6) Exhibit 2 to the Pages 6-25 GRANTED 19 Declaration of Page 26:1-13 (contains 20 Caitlyn N. confidential source Bingaman in code information. 21 Support of Philips’s See Dkt. Nos. 775, Motion to Exclude 781) 22 Untimely Theories 23 in Dr. Dunlop’s Rebuttal Expert 24 Report Served on Behalf of ASUS 25 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 26 RE44,913 27 711-5 / (710-8) Exhibit 4 to the Page 5:9-28 DENIED Declaration of Pages 6-8 (No supporting Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- 1 Support of Philips’s 5(e)(1).) 2 Motion to Exclude Untimely Theories 3 in Dr. Dunlop’s Rebuttal Expert 4 Report Served on Behalf of ASUS 5 Concerning U.S. 6 Patent No. RE44,913 7 711-6 / (710-10) Exhibit 5 to the Page 41 DENIED Declaration of (No supporting 8 Caitlyn N. declaration filed. Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- 9 Support of Philips’s 5(e)(1).) 10 Motion to Exclude Untimely Theories 11 in Dr. Dunlop’s Rebuttal Expert 12 Report Served on Behalf of ASUS 13 Concerning U.S. 14 Patent No. RE44,913 15 711-7 / (710-11) Exhibit 6 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 16 Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART 17 Bingaman in (contains Support of Philips’s confidential source 18 Motion to Exclude code information as Untimely Theories indicated in Dkt. 19 in Dr. Dunlop’s Nos. 775 and 782-1. Rebuttal Expert See Dkt. Nos. 775, 20 Report Served on 781) 21 Behalf of ASUS Concerning U.S. 22 Patent No. RE44,913 23 711-8 / (710-13, Exhibit 7 to the Portions of Pages 3, 4, 5 GRANTED IN 782-2) Declaration of PART AND 24 Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART 25 Bingaman in (contains Support of Philips’s confidential 26 Motion to Exclude information Untimely Theories regarding operation 27 in Dr. Dunlop’s of third-party Report Served on and source code as 1 Behalf of ASUS indicated in Dkt. No. 2 Concerning U.S. 782-2. See Dkt. No. Patent No. 781) 3 RE44,913 711-9 / (710-15, Exhibit 8 to the Portions of Pages 3 and 4 GRANTED IN 4 782-3) Declaration of PART AND Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART 5 Bingaman in (contains 6 Support of Philips’s confidential Motion to Exclude information 7 Untimely Theories regarding operation in Dr. Dunlop’s of third-party 8 Rebuttal Expert Google’s products as Report Served on indicated in Dkt. No. 9 Behalf of ASUS 782-3. See Dkt. No. 10 Concerning U.S. 781) Patent No. 11 RE44,913 711-10 / (710-17) Exhibit 9 to the Pages 265-68 DENIED 12 Declaration of (No supporting 13 Caitlyn N. declaration filed. See Bingaman in Civ. L.R. 79- 14 Support of Philips’s 5(e)(1).) Motion to Exclude 15 Untimely Theories in Dr. Dunlop’s 16 Rebuttal Expert 17 Report Served on Behalf of ASUS 18 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 19 RE44,913 711-11 / (710-18) Exhibit 10 to the Entire Document DENIED 20 Declaration of (No supporting 21 Caitlyn N. declaration filed. See Bingaman in Civ. L.R. 79- 22 Support of Philips’s 5(e)(1).) Motion to Exclude 23 Untimely Theories in Dr. Dunlop’s 24 Rebuttal Expert 25 Report Served on Behalf of ASUS 26 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 27 RE44,913 713 / (712-4) Philips’ Motion to Page i:12-15 DENIED 1 Exclude Certain Page 8:17-21 (cites portions of 2 Opinions in Dr. Page 9:1-2 exhibits not properly Jakobsson’s Page 14:19-26 subject to sealing. 3 Opening and Page 15:1-9, 14-16, 18-21 See infra discussion Rebuttal Expert Page 16:7-17, 19, 21, 24- re: exhibits.) 4 Reports Served on 25 Behalf of ASUS Page 17:1-2, 4-7, 17-18 5 Concerning U.S. Page 18:1-11, 14, 18, 20- 6 Patent No. 21, 22, 24-26 9,436,809 Page 19:1-2, 6-8 7 713-3 / (712-6) Exhibit 2 to Paragraphs 138-40 at page DENIED Declaration of 44 (No supporting 8 Caitlyn N. declaration filed. See Bingaman in Portion of paragraph 171 at Civ. L.R. 79- 9 Support of Philips’ page 53 5(e)(1).) 10 Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions in Portion of paragraph 366 at 11 Dr. Jakobsson’s page 127 Opening and 12 Rebuttal Expert Reports Served on 13 Behalf of ASUS 14 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 15 9,436,809 713-4 / (712-7) Exhibit 3 to Entire Document DENIED 16 Declaration of (No supporting 17 Caitlyn N. declaration filed. See Bingaman in Civ. L.R. 79- 18 Support of Philips’ 5(e)(1).) Motion to Exclude 19 Certain Opinions in Dr. Jakobsson’s 20 Opening and 21 Rebuttal Expert Reports Served on 22 Behalf of ASUS Concerning U.S. 23 Patent No. 9,436,809 24 713-6 / (712-9) Exhibit 5 to Page i:8-15 DENIED 25 Declaration of Page 2:1-8 (No supporting Caitlyn N. Page 3:12-25 declaration filed. See 26 Bingaman in Page 4:1-2, 14-15, 20-28 Civ. L.R. 79- Support of Philips’ Page 5:1-13, 16-17 5(e)(1).) 27 Motion to Exclude Page 6:1-6, 8-10, 24-28 Dr. Jakobsson’s Page 8:1-17, 23-24 1 Opening and Page 9:16-28 2 Rebuttal Expert Page 10:1-18 Reports Served on Page 11:1-8 3 Behalf of ASUS Concerning U.S. 4 Patent No. 9,436,809 5 713-8 / (712-11) Exhibit 7 to Pages 6, 159-171 GRANTED IN 6 Declaration of Page 172:1-12 PART AND Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART 7 Bingaman in (contains Support of Philips’ confidential source 8 Motion to Exclude code on page 6. See Certain Opinions in Dkt. No. 776.) 9 Dr. Jakobsson’s 10 Opening and Rebuttal Expert 11 Reports Served on Behalf of ASUS 12 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 13 9,436,809 14 713-9 / (712-13) Exhibit 8 to Pages 6, 159-171, 172:1-3 GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 15 Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART Bingaman in (contains source 16 Support of Philips’ code information on 17 Motion to Exclude page 6. See Dkt. Certain Opinions in No. 776.) 18 Dr. Jakobsson’s Opening and 19 Rebuttal Expert Reports Served on 20 Behalf of ASUS 21 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 22 9,436,809 713-11 / (712-15) Exhibit 10 to Pages 5:10-9:20 DENIED 23 Declaration of (No supporting Caitlyn N. declaration filed. 24 Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- 25 Support of Philips’ 5(e)(1).) Motion to Exclude 26 Certain Opinions in Dr. Jakobsson’s 27 Opening and Reports Served on 1 Behalf of ASUS 2 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 3 9,436,809 713-12 / (712-17) Exhibit 11 to Appendix I at 5, 6 GRANTED 4 Declaration of (contains Caitlyn N. Appendix R at 3 information 5 Bingaman in regarding 6 Support of Philips’ confidential supplier Motion to Exclude agreements and 7 Certain Opinions in deposition testimony Dr. Jakobsson’s regarding product 8 Opening and operation and Rebuttal Expert testing. See Dkt. 9 Reports Served on Nos. 776, 781.) 10 Behalf of ASUS Concerning U.S. 11 Patent No. 9,436,809 12 713-13 / (712-19) Exhibit 12 to Portions of pages 3, 4, and GRANTED IN 13 Declaration of 5 PART AND Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART 14 Bingaman in (contains Support of Philips’ confidential 15 Motion to Exclude information about Certain Opinions in operation of third- 16 Dr. Jakobsson’s party Google’s 17 Opening and products as indicated Rebuttal Expert in Dkt. No. 782-2. 18 Reports Served on See Dkt No. 781.) Behalf of ASUS 19 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 20 9,436,809 21 713-14 / (712-21) Exhibit 13 to Portions of pages 3, 4 GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 22 Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART Bingaman in (contains 23 Support of Philips’ confidential Motion to Exclude information about 24 Certain Opinions in operation of third- 25 Dr. Jakobsson’s party Google’s Opening and products as indicated 26 Rebuttal Expert in Dkt. No. 782-3. Reports Served on See Dkt No. 781.) 27 Behalf of ASUS Patent No. 1 9,436,809 2 Dkt. No. 722 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 724 / (722-9) ASUS’s Notice of Page 8:9-17 GRANTED 3 Motion and Motion (contains for Summary confidential source 4 Judgment code information. See Dkt. Nos. 711-1, 5 781, 782-10.) 6 724-6 / (722-3) Exhibit 5 to Paragraphs 34-44 GRANTED Declaration of Paragraph 99 (contains 7 Angela M. He in Paragraphs 177-80 confidential source Support of ASUS’s code. See Dkt. Nos. 8 Motion for 711-1, 781, 782-11.) Summary Judgment 9 724-9 / (722-5) Exhibit 8 to Paragraphs 125-38 GRANTED 10 Declaration of Paragraphs 140-43 (contains Angela M. He in Paragraphs 157-61 confidential source 11 Support of ASUS’s Paragraphs 162-64 code information, as Motion for Paragraphs 175-77 well as confidential 12 Summary Judgment Paragraphs 178-81 licensing 13 Paragraphs 201-03 information. See Paragraphs 210-11 Dkt. Nos. 711-1, 14 Paragraphs 238-41 781, 782-12.) Paragraphs 266-70 15 Paragraph 302 Paragraphs 315-18 16 Paragraph 353 17 Paragraph 365 Paragraph 368 18 Paragraphs 453-58 Paragraph 486-87 19 Paragraph 491 Paragraphs 525-27 20 Paragraphs 534-37 21 Paragraphs 575-77 724-21 / (722-7) Exhibit 20 to Page 163:25-164:13 DENIED 22 Declaration of (No supporting Angela M. He in declaration filed. 23 Support of ASUS’s See Civ. L.R. 79- Motion for 5(e)(1).) 24 Summary Judgment 25 Dkt. No. 726 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 766 / (726-4) Philips’ Motion to Page 2:15-22 GRANTED 26 Exclude Certain Page 3:1, 5-22 (contains proprietary Opinions in Dr. Page 4:1-3, 18, 26-27 information of third- 27 Bulterman’s Page 6:9 party Google’s Report Served On Page 8:6-18, 23, 27 Nos. 781, 782-13.) 1 Behalf of ASUS Page 9:6-7, 16-17 2 Concerning U.S. Page 12:12-17, 20-21, 24- Patent No. 27 3 7,529,806 Page 24:24-25:11 4 766-2 / (726-5) Exhibit 1 to Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 5 Caitlyn Bingaman In DENIED IN PART 6 Support of Philips’ (contains proprietary Motion to Exclude information about 7 Certain Opinions in third party Google’s Dr. Bulterman’s products and source 8 Rebuttal Expert code, as indicated in Report Served On Dkt. No. 782-14. 9 Behalf of ASUS See Dkt. No. 781.) 10 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 11 7,529,806 766-3 / (726-6) Exhibit 2 to Entire Document GRANTED IN 12 Declaration of PART AND 13 Caitlyn Bingaman In DENIED IN PART Support of Philips’ (contains 14 Motion to Exclude confidential source Certain Opinions in code and proprietary 15 Dr. Bulterman’s information about Rebuttal Expert third party Google’s 16 Report Served On products at pages 17 Behalf of ASUS 107 through 158. Concerning U.S. See Dkt. Nos. 777, 18 Patent No. 781.) 7,529,806 19 766-6 / (726-7) Exhibit 5 to Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 20 Caitlyn Bingaman In DENIED IN PART 21 Support of Philips’ (contains proprietary Motion to Exclude information about 22 Certain Opinions in third party Google’s Dr. Bulterman’s products and 23 Rebuttal Expert business operations Report Served On as indicated in Dkt. 24 Behalf of ASUS No. 782-15. See 25 Concerning U.S. Dkt. No. 781.) Patent No. 26 7,529,806 766-9 / (726-9) Exhibit 8 to Portions of Pages 3-5 GRANTED IN 27 Declaration of PART AND Support of Philips’ (contains 1 Motion to Exclude confidential 2 Certain Opinions in information about Dr. Bulterman’s operation of third- 3 Rebuttal Expert party Google’s Report Served On products as indicated 4 Behalf of ASUS in Dkt. No. 782-2. Concerning U.S. See Dkt No. 781.) 5 Patent No. 6 7,529,806 766-10 / (726-11) Exhibit 9 to Portions of Pages 3-4 GRANTED IN 7 Declaration of PART AND Caitlyn Bingaman In DENIED IN PART 8 Support of Philips’ (contains Motion to Exclude confidential 9 Certain Opinions in information about 10 Dr. Bulterman’s operation of third- Rebuttal Expert party Google’s 11 Report Served On products as indicated Behalf of ASUS in Dkt. No. 782-3. 12 Concerning U.S. See Dkt No. 781.) Patent No. 13 7,529,806 14 Dkt. No. 741 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 742 / (741-5) Microsoft and Page i:9-10, 12-28 GRANTED IN 15 ASUS’s Daubert Page 1:20-28 PART AND Motion to Exclude Page 2:1-6, 13-23 DENIED IN PART 16 Expert Opinions of Page 3:124 (contains 17 Michael E. Tate Page 4:5-22, 25-28 confidential (Damages) Page 5:1-5, 22-28 licensing and 18 Page 6:1-20 business information Pages 7-11 (entirety) at:2 19 Page 13:9-18, 20-28  Page 1:21- Page 14:1-12, 16-28 22; 20 Page 15:1-4, 17:28  Page 2:3-4; 21 Page 16:1-3, 21-22, 25-27  Page 6:1; Page 17:1-9  Page 7:21- 22 Page 18:2-26 26; Page 19:1-4, 10-19, 27-28  Page 8:2-13; 23 Page 20:1-14, 20-21, 23,  Page 10:11- 25-28 24 25 2 Philips seeks to seal additional information at 1:27-2:5, 8:28-9:1, 10, 13:10-13, 13: 23-26, 14:1- 4, 14:9-12, 14:23-26, 15:23-16:3, 16:21-22, 18:22-19:4, 19:10-16, 20:21-22, 21:26-22:2, 23:4-5, 26 and 24:1-2. These pages describe the very nature of Mr. Tate’s damages analysis that Defendants challenge as unreliable. Philips failed to articulate good cause to seal information about how Mr. 27 Tate conducted his analysis. Philips also improperly seeks to seal publicly available information Page 21:1-28 14, 19-24; 1 Page 22:1-2, 10-20, 23-28  Page 11:5-6, 2 Page 23:1-6, 11-28 8-12, 21-22; Page 24:1-6, 16-18  Page 14:5-9, 3 Page 25:1-2 16-20;  Page 14:27- 4 15:1; 5  Page 15:22- 23; 6  Page 18:8- 15; 7  Page 19:1; 8  Page 21:1-3, 8, 10-12, 17- 9 25;  Page 22:24- 10 27;  Page 23:17- 11 19; 12 See Dkt. Nos. 741-1, 785.) 13 742-2 / (741-7) Exhibit 1 to Entire document GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 14 Tiffany Cunningham DENIED IN PART 15 In Support of (contains Microsoft and Defendants’ (1) 16 ASUS’s Daubert confidential sales Motion to Exclude data and figures 17 Expert Opinions of derived from sales Michael E. Tate data (2) information 18 about confidential 19 licensing agreements, and (3) 20 business information related to internal 21 operations, as indicated in Dkt. No. 22 741-7. See Dkt. No. 23 741-1. Further contains Philips’s 24 confidential licensing and sales 25 information as indicated in Dkt. No. 26 785-2. See Dkt. No. 27 785.) Declaration of PART AND 1 Tiffany Cunningham DENIED IN PART 2 In Support of (contains Microsoft and Defendants’ 3 ASUS’s Daubert confidential sales Motion to Exclude and licensing 4 Expert Opinions of information as Michael E. Tate indicated in Dkt. No. 5 741-9. See Dkt. No. 6 741-2. Further contains Philips’s 7 confidential licensing and sales 8 information as indicated in Dkt. No. 9 785-3. See Dkt. No. 10 785.) 742-4 / (741-11) Exhibit 3 to Entire Document GRANTED IN 11 Declaration of PART AND Tiffany Cunningham DENIED IN PART 12 In Support of (contains Philips’s Microsoft and confidential 13 ASUS’s Daubert licensing 14 Motion to Exclude information as Expert Opinions of indicated in Dkt. No. 15 Michael E. Tate 785-4. See Dkt. No. 785.) 16 742-5 / (741-13) Exhibit 4 to Entire Document GRANTED IN 17 Declaration of PART AND Tiffany Cunningham DENIED IN PART 18 In Support of (contains Philips’s Microsoft and confidential 19 ASUS’s Daubert licensing Motion to Exclude information as 20 Expert Opinions of indicated in Dkt. No. 21 Michael E. Tate 785-5. See Dkt. No. 785.) 22 742-6 / (741-15) Exhibit 5 to Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 23 Tiffany Cunningham DENIED IN PART In Support of (contains Philips’s 24 Microsoft and confidential 25 ASUS’s Daubert licensing Motion to Exclude information as 26 Expert Opinions of indicated in Dkt. No. Michael E. Tate 785-6. See Dkt. No. 27 785.) Declaration of PART AND 1 Tiffany Cunningham DENIED IN PART 2 In Support of (contains Philips’s Microsoft and confidential 3 ASUS’s Daubert licensing Motion to Exclude information as 4 Expert Opinions of indicated in Dkt. No. Michael E. Tate 785-7. See Dkt. No. 5 785. Further 6 contains damages calculation based on 7 confidential sales data, as indicated in 8 Dkt. No. 741-17. See Dkt. No. 741-1.) 9 742-9 / (741-19) Exhibit 8 to Entire Document GRANTED IN 10 Declaration of PART AND Tiffany Cunningham DENIED IN PART 11 In Support of (contains Philips’s Microsoft and confidential 12 ASUS’s Daubert licensing Motion to Exclude information as 13 Expert Opinions of indicated in Dkt. No. 14 Michael E. Tate 785-8. See Dkt. No. 785.) 15 741-10 / (741-21) Exhibit 9 to Entire Document DENIED Declaration of (although Philips 16 Tiffany Cunningham provides a 17 In Support of declaration seeking Microsoft and to seal exhibit 9, it 18 ASUS’s Daubert fails to articulate any Motion to Exclude reasons for sealing. 19 Expert Opinions of See Dkt. No. 785. Michael E. Tate According to 20 Defendants’ motion, 21 the composition of the Portable Features 22 portfolio is “no secret” and “Philips 23 posted the Portable Features portfolio on 24 its website.”3 Dkt. 25 No. 742 at 4:9-10.) 26 Dkt. No. 750 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 27 751 / (750-4) Philips’ Motion for Page 17:22-24, 27-28 DENIED 1 Partial Summary Page 18-6-9, 22-24, 27-28 (cites information 2 Judgment On Page 20:3-14, 14, 16-19, for which Certain Affirmative 24-27 compelling reasons 3 Defenses Raised by Page 21:1-2 to seal have not been the ASUS established. See 4 Defendants infra discussion re: exhibits.) 5 753-9 / (750-6) Exhibit 19 to the Page 39:8-41:11 DENIED 6 Declaration of Page 55:7-58:24 (No supporting Caitlyn N. Page 61:21-26 declaration filed. 7 Bingaman In Page 62:19-25 See Civ. L.R. 79- Support of Philips’ Page 63:1-8 5(e)(1).) 8 Motion for Partial Page 65:5-12 Summary Judgment Page 66:14-27 9 On Certain Page 71:18-20 10 Affirmative Page 72:21-25 Defenses Raised by Pag 73:2-3 11 the ASUS Page 73:15-28 Defendants Page 74:1-14 12 769-7 / (750-7) Exhibit 37 to the Entire Document DENIED 13 Declaration of (No supporting Caitlyn N. declaration filed. 14 Bingaman In See Civ. L.R. 79- Support of Philips’ 5(e)(1).) 15 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 16 On Certain 17 Affirmative Defenses Raised by 18 the ASUS Defendants 19 769-9 / (750-8) Exhibit 39 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of (No supporting 20 Caitlyn N. declaration filed. 21 Bingaman In See Civ. L.R. 79- Support of Philips’ 5(e)(1).) 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 23 On Certain Affirmative 24 Defenses Raised by 25 the ASUS Defendants 26 769-10 / (750-9) Exhibit 40 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of (contains 27 Caitlyn N. information about Support of Philips’ agreement and 1 Motion for Partial terms. See Dkt. No. 2 Summary Judgment 778.) On Certain 3 Affirmative Defenses Raised by 4 the ASUS Defendants 5 Dkt. No. 803 - DENIED 6 805 / (803-3) ASUS’s Opposition Page 4:20-5:21 DENIED to Philips’ Motion to (No supporting 7 Exclude Certain declaration filed. Opinions in Dr. See Civ. L.R. 79- 8 Jakobsson’s 5(e)(1).) Opening and 9 Rebuttal Expert 10 Reports Served on Behalf of ASUS 11 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 12 9,436,809 13 805-2 / (803-7) Exhibit 1 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of (No supporting 14 Michael J. Newton declaration filed. In Support of See Civ. L.R. 79- 15 ASUS’s Opposition 5(e)(1).) to Philips’ Motion to 16 Exclude Certain 17 Opinions in Dr. Jakobsson’s 18 Opening and Rebuttal Expert 19 Reports Served on Behalf of ASUS 20 Concerning U.S. 21 Patent No. 9,436,809 22 Dkt. No. 806 – GRANTED 807 / (806-4) Philips’s Opposition Page 3:6-11 GRANTED 23 to Microsoft and Page 4:2, 14-18 (contains ASUS’s Daubert Page 5:5-14 confidential 24 Motion to Exclude Page 7:23-24, 26-27 licensing 25 Expert Opinions of Page 12:3-25 information. See Michael E. Tate Page 16:8-9, 13-21 Dkt. Nos. 856, 806- 26 Page 21:21 1, and supra Page 23:2-3 discussion re: Dkt. 27 Pages 24:15-26:11 No. 742.) Declaration of (contains 1 Natalie Lieber in confidential 2 Support of Philips’s financial Opposition to information. See 3 Microsoft and Dkt. No. 806-1.) ASUS’s Daubert 4 Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of 5 Michael E. Tate 6 807-8 / (806-6) Exhibit G to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of (contains 7 Natalie Lieber in confidential royalty Support of Philips’s and sales 8 Opposition to information. See Microsoft and Dkt. No. 856.) 9 ASUS’s Daubert 10 Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of 11 Michael E. Tate 807-9 / (806-7) Exhibit H to the Entire Document GRANTED 12 Declaration of (contains 13 Natalie Lieber in confidential Support of Philips’s licensing 14 Opposition to information. See Microsoft and Dkt. No. 856.) 15 ASUS’s Daubert Motion to Exclude 16 Expert Opinions of 17 Michael E. Tate Dkt. No. 828 - DENIED 18 830 / (828-2) ASUS’s Opposition Page 9:21-22 DENIED to Philips’ Motion Page 10:1-9 (No supporting 19 for Partial Summary Page 11:3-4 declaration filed. Judgment on Certain Page 11:6-10 See Civ. L.R. 79- 20 Affirmative Page 12:2-4 5(e)(1).) 21 Defenses 830-2 / (828-4) Exhibit 1 to Entire Document DENIED 22 Declaration of Erika (No supporting H. Warren in declaration filed. 23 Support of ASUS See Civ. L.R. 79- Opposition to 5(e)(1).) 24 Philips’ Motion for 25 Partial Summary Judgment On 26 Certain Affirmative Defenses 27 830-5 / (828-5) Exhibit 4 to Entire Document DENIED H. Warren in declaration filed. 1 Support of ASUS See Civ. L.R. 79- 2 Opposition to 5(e)(1).) Philips’ Motion for 3 Partial Summary Judgment On 4 Certain Affirmative Defenses 5 Dkt. No. 836 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 6 827 / (836-4) Philips’ Opposition Pages 1:17-3:5 GRANTED IN to ASUS’s Motion Page 3:19-24 PART AND 7 for Summary Page 4:21-28 DENIED IN PART Judgment Page 5:10-11 (contains 8 Page 6:18-7:4 confidential Page 7:26-27 licensing 9 Page 15:27-28 information at 10 Page 19:27-20:6, 20:11-13 20:10-13 and confidential source 11 code and technical information at 2:2-7, 12 2:10-11, 2:17-27, 13 3:23-24. See Dkt. Nos. 853, 857.4) 14 827-2 / (836-6) Exhibit 1 to the Page i:9 GRANTED IN Declaration of Pages 15:15-18:12 PART AND 15 Caitlyn N. Page 18:16-27 DENIED IN PART Bingaman in Page 24:3-6, 9-26 (contains 16 Support of Philips’ Page 25 confidential business 17 Opposition to Page 26:1-12 information ASUS’s Motion for Page 31:7-8, 31:18-32:3 regarding ASUS and 18 Summary Judgment Page 32:9-46:15 one of its suppliers, Page 52:3-60:26 as well as source 19 Page 70:1-8 code, schematics, Page 71:3-4, 6-24 and additional 20 Page 72:3-80:8 technical 21 Page 81:8-83:17 information on Page 85:24-86:15 which the Court 22 Page 86:21-91:9 does not rely as stated in Dkt. No. 23 857, except for pages 42:5-11, 24 25 4The Court rejects parties’ request to seal information at 1:16-2:1, 2:27-3:5, 3:21-23, 4:22-28, 5:10-11, 6:18-7:4, 7 n.2 on the grounds that the information is already disclosed in public filings. 26 See Dkt. No. 724 at 4:3-18, 5:12-14; Dkt. No.895 at 2:25-3:10, 4:16-18; Dkt. No. 827-2. Several of these pages quote ASUS’s publicly filed motion, which underscores that the parties have not 27 narrowly tailored their requests. See Dkt. No. 836-4 at 1:16-24, 2:14, 3:2-5, 6:18-20. ASUS and 77:14-78:11, 83:5- 1 17, 86:3-10, 90:6- 2 91:9.5 Cf. Dkt. No. 853.) 3 827-3 / (836-8) Exhibit 2 to the 11:19-37:17 GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 4 Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART Bingaman in (contains 5 Support of Philips’ confidential source 6 Opposition to code information at ASUS’s Motion for 12:3-6, 12:21, 14:7- 7 Summary Judgment 25, 25:17-23, 26:14, 32:15-23, 33:2-11, 8 33:25, 36:11-15, 37:4-17. See Dkt. 9 No. 857.6) 10 827-4 / (836-9) Exhibit 3 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 11 Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART Bingaman in (contains 12 Support of Philips’ confidential business 13 Opposition to information ASUS’s Motion for regarding ASUS and 14 Summary Judgment one of its suppliers at 62:15-63:20. See 15 Dkt. No. 857.) 827-5 / (836-10) Exhibit 4 to the Entire Document GRANTED 16 Declaration of (contains 17 Caitlyn N. confidential source Bingaman in code of third party 18 Support of Philips’ Google. See Dkt. Opposition to No. 853.) 19 ASUS’s Motion for Summary Judgment 20 827-15 / (836-12) Exhibit 14 to the Page 21:2-6, 25 GRANTED 21 Declaration of Page 22:4-5, 11-14, 18-19, (contains Caitlyn N. 22-24 confidential business 22 Bingaman in Page 28:12-14, 17-18, 27- information and Support of Philips’ 28 confidential source 23 24 5 These passages are directly relevant to the Court’s analysis and contain technical information too general to be considered a trade secret. See Apple, 2012 WL 6115623, at *2. Most of the 25 information is also already disclosed in public filings or else from the operation of the products themselves. See Agency Solutions.Com, 819 F. Supp. 2d at 1017. ASUS fails to articulate 26 competitive harm from disclosure of information in these circumstances. 27 6 ASUS and Google seek to seal additional information in this exhibit, claiming it discloses Opposition to Pages 36:12-40:2 code and technical 1 ASUS’s Motion for Page 40:8-9 operation 2 Summary Judgment Pages 40:12-44:2 information. See Pages 47:13-59:2 Dkt. Nos. 853, 857.) 3 Pages 61:6-79:17 Page 79:20-24 4 Page 109:1-7 Page 111:22-112:3 5 Page 112:19-23 6 Page 127:4, 21 Page 128:12, 25 7 Page 129:11, 26 Page 142:2-21 8 Page 143:24-144:24 Pages 170:4-171:20 9 Page 195:10-11, 14-16 10 827-16 / (836-13) Exhibit 15 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 11 Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART Bingaman in (contains 12 Support of Philips’ confidential Opposition to information 13 ASUS’s Motion for regarding internal 14 Summary Judgment IDs and identifications of 15 components as indicated in Dkt. No. 16 857.) 17 827-17 / (836-14) Exhibit 16 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of PART AND 18 Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART Bingaman in (contains 19 Support of Philips’ confidential Opposition to information 20 ASUS’s Motion for regarding internal 21 Summary Judgment IDs and identifications of 22 components as indicated in Dkt. No. 23 857.) 827-18 / (836-16) Exhibit 17 to the Page 96:15-18 GRANTED 24 Declaration of Page 97:13-16 (contains 25 Caitlyn N. Page 99:2-6 confidential source Bingaman in Page 106:15-16 code information. 26 Support of Philips’ Page 107:7-10 See Dkt. No. 853.) Opposition to Page 113:20-22 27 ASUS’s Motion for Page 114:3-5, 10-12 827-20 / (836-17) Exhibit 19 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 1 Declaration of PART AND 2 Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART Bingaman in (contains 3 Support of Philips’ confidential Opposition to information 4 ASUS’s Motion for regarding internal Summary Judgment IDs and 5 identifications of 6 components as indicated in Dkt. No. 7 857.) 827-29 / (836-18) Exhibit 28 to the Entire Document DENIED 8 Declaration of (No supporting Caitlyn N. declaration filed. 9 Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- 10 Support of Philips’ 5(e)(1).) Opposition to 11 ASUS’s Motion for Summary Judgment 12 827-30 / (836-20) Exhibit 29 to the Page 165:5-13, 19-21 GRANTED 13 Declaration of Page 166:12-28 (contains Caitlyn N. Page 167:1-2, 5-9 confidential business 14 Bingaman in Page 168:1-20, 23-28 and technical Support of Philips’ Page 169:4-6, 11-12 information. See 15 Opposition to Page 170:1-24 Dkt. No. 857.) ASUS’s Motion for Pages 171:2-173:20 16 Summary Judgment Pages 173:24-175:20 17 827-31 / (836-21) Exhibit 30 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 18 Declaration of PART AND Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART 19 Bingaman in (contains Support of Philips’ confidential 20 Opposition to information 21 ASUS’s Motion for regarding internal Summary Judgment IDs and 22 identifications of components, to the 23 extent stated in Dkt. No. 857.) 24 831-2 / (836-22) Exhibit 33 to the Entire Document GRANTED 25 Declaration of (contains Caitlyn N. confidential license 26 Bingaman in information. See Support of Philips’ Dkt. No. 857.) 27 Opposition to Summary Judgment 1 831-4 / (836-23) Exhibit 35 to the Entire Document DENIED 2 Declaration of (No supporting Caitlyn N. declaration filed. 3 Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- Support of Philips’ 5(e)(1).) 4 Opposition to ASUS’s Motion for 5 Summary Judgment 6 831-7 / (836-24) Exhibit 38 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of (No supporting 7 Caitlyn N. declaration filed. Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- 8 Support of Philips’ 5(e)(1).) Opposition to 9 ASUS’s Motion for 10 Summary Judgment Dkt. No. 844 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 11 832 / (844-3) ASUS’ Opposition References to certain GRANTED IN to Philips’ Motion to functionality throughout PART AND 12 Exclude Portions of DENIED IN PART 13 Dr. Bulterman’s Page 3:4 (contains Rebuttal Expert Page 4:1-4 confidential 14 Report Concerning Page 5:21-25 technical U.S. Patent No. Page 26:1-4, 10-13 information as 15 7,529,806 Page 11:8-12, 19-22 indicated in Dkt. No. Page 11:6-7 854-15. See Dkt. 16 Page 12:17-18 No. 853.) 17 832-3 / (844-4) Exhibit 2 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Erika (No supporting 18 H. Warrant in declaration filed. Support of ASUS’ See Civ. L.R. 79- 19 Opposition to 5(e)(1).) Philips’ Motion to 20 Exclude Portions of 21 Dr. Bulterman’s Rebuttal Expert 22 Report Concerning U.S. Patent No. 23 7,529,806 24 832-7 / (844-5) Exhibit 6 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Erika PART AND 25 H. Warrant in DENIED IN PART Support of ASUS’ (contains 26 Opposition to confidential Philips’ Motion to technical 27 Exclude Portions of information as Rebuttal Expert 853-4. See Dkt. No. 1 Report Concerning 853.) 2 U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 3 832-8 / (844-6) Exhibit 7 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Erika PART AND 4 H. Warrant in DENIED IN PART Support of ASUS’ (contains 5 Opposition to confidential 6 Philips’ Motion to technical Exclude Portions of information as 7 Dr. Bulterman’s indicated in Dkt. No. Rebuttal Expert 853-5. See Dkt. No. 8 Report Concerning 853.) U.S. Patent No. 9 7,529,806 10 832-9 / (844-7) Exhibit 8 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Erika PART AND 11 H. Warrant in DENIED IN PART Support of ASUS’ (contains 12 Opposition to confidential 13 Philips’ Motion to technical Exclude Portions of information as 14 Dr. Bulterman’s indicated in Dkt. No. Rebuttal Expert 853-6. See Dkt. No. 15 Report Concerning 853.) U.S. Patent No. 16 7,529,806 17 832-10 / (844-8) Exhibit 9 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Erika PART AND 18 H. Warrant in DENIED IN PART Support of ASUS’ (contains 19 Opposition to confidential Philips’ Motion to technical 20 Exclude Portions of information as 21 Dr. Bulterman’s indicated in Dkt. No. Rebuttal Expert 853-7. See Dkt. No. 22 Report Concerning 853.) U.S. Patent No. 23 7,529,806 832-11 / (844-9) Exhibit 10 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 24 Declaration of Erika PART AND 25 H. Warrant in DENIED IN PART Support of ASUS’ (contains 26 Opposition to confidential Philips’ Motion to technical 27 Exclude Portions of information as Rebuttal Expert 853-8. See Dkt. No. 1 Report Concerning 853.) 2 U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 3 832-14 / (844-10) Exhibit 13 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Erika PART AND 4 H. Warrant in DENIED IN PART Support of ASUS’ (contains 5 Opposition to confidential 6 Philips’ Motion to technical Exclude Portions of information as 7 Dr. Bulterman’s indicated in Dkt. No. Rebuttal Expert 853-9. See Dkt. No. 8 Report Concerning 853.) U.S. Patent No. 9 7,529,806 10 832-17 / (844-11) Exhibit 16 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Erika PART AND 11 H. Warrant in DENIED IN PART Support of ASUS’ (contains 12 Opposition to confidential 13 Philips’ Motion to technical Exclude Portions of information as 14 Dr. Bulterman’s indicated in Dkt. No. Rebuttal Expert 853-13. See Dkt. 15 Report Concerning No. 853.) U.S. Patent No. 16 7,529,806 17 832-18 / (844-12) Exhibit 17 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Erika (contains 18 H. Warrant in confidential Support of ASUS’ technical 19 Opposition to information. See Philips’ Motion to Dkt. No. 853.) 20 Exclude Portions of 21 Dr. Bulterman’s Rebuttal Expert 22 Report Concerning U.S. Patent No. 23 7,529,806 832-19 / (844-13) Exhibit 18 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 24 Declaration of Erika PART AND 25 H. Warrant in DENIED IN PART Support of ASUS’ (contains 26 Opposition to confidential source Philips’ Motion to code information as 27 Exclude Portions of indicated in Dkt. No. Rebuttal Expert 950.) 1 Report Concerning 2 U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 3 832-20 / (844-14) Exhibit 19 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Erika PART AND 4 H. Warrant in DENIED IN PART Support of ASUS’ (contains 5 Opposition to confidential 6 Philips’ Motion to technical Exclude Portions of information as 7 Dr. Bulterman’s indicated in Dkt. No. Rebuttal Expert 853-10. See Dkt. 8 Report Concerning No. 853.) U.S. Patent No. 9 7,529,806 10 Dkt. No. 872 - DENIED 873-2 / (872-3) Exhibit 11 to the Entire Document DENIED 11 Declaration of (No supporting Caitlyn N. declaration filed. 12 Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- 13 Support of Philips’s 5(e)(1).) Reply in Support of 14 Philips’s Motion to Exclude Untimely 15 Theories of Dr. Dunlop 16 Dkt. No. 888 - DENIED 17 Microsoft and Page 3:28 DENIED ASUS’s Reply in Page 4:1-2 (ASUS seeks to seal 18 Support of Daubert portions of its Reply Motion to Exclude designated by 19 Expert Opinions of Philips as Michael E. Tate confidential under 20 (Damages) the protective order. 21 See Dkt. No. 888-1. Philips provides a 22 declaration seeking to seal entirely 23 different portions of the Reply. See Dkt. 24 No. 914. Most of 25 Philips’s redactions are directed to 26 alleged flaws in Mr. Tate’s analysis—the 27 heart of Defendants’ on which Philips 1 presumably seeks 2 damages in this litigation. Because 3 such reductions are improper and—in 4 any case—already publicly disclosed at 5 Dkt. No. 889, 6 Philips’s request is denied.) 7 Dkt. No. 893 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 895-1 / (893-2) Exhibit 1 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 8 Declaration of Erika PART AND H. Warren in DENIED IN PART 9 Support of ASUS’ (contains 10 Reply Memorandum confidential source in Support of Its code information as 11 Motion for indicated in Dkt. No. Summary Judgment 971-1. See Dkt. No. 12 917.) 13 Dkt. No. 899 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 900 / (899-4) Philips’s Reply In References to particular GRANTED IN 14 Support of Motion “theories” of PART AND to Exclude Certain noninfringement, the DENIED IN PART 15 Opinions In Dr. identity of a witness, and (contains Bulterman’s source code throughout. confidential source 16 Rebuttal Expert code and technical 17 Report Served on product information Behalf of ASUS as indicated in Dkt. 18 Concerning U.S. No. 971-2. See Dkt. Patent No. No. 917.) 19 7,529,806 900-3 / (899-6) Exhibit 12 to the Entire Document DENIED 20 Declaration of (No supporting 21 Caitlyn N. declaration filed. Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- 22 Support of Philips’s 5(e)(1).) Reply In Support of 23 Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions In 24 Dr. Bulterman’s 25 Rebuttal Expert Report Served on 26 Behalf of ASUS Concerning U.S. 27 Patent No. 900-4 / (899-8) Exhibit 13 to the References to certain GRANTED IN 1 Declaration of technical products and PART AND 2 Caitlyn N. source code throughout DENIED IN PART Bingaman in (contains 3 Support of Philips’s confidential product Reply In Support of information as 4 Motion to Exclude indicated in Dkt. No. Certain Opinions In 853-5. See Dkt. No. 5 Dr. Bulterman’s 917.) 6 Rebuttal Expert Report Served on 7 Behalf of ASUS Concerning U.S. 8 Patent No. 7,529,806 9 900-5 / (899-10) Exhibit 14 to the References to certain GRANTED IN 10 Declaration of technical products and PART AND Caitlyn N. source code throughout DENIED IN PART 11 Bingaman in (contains Support of Philips’s confidential product 12 Reply In Support of information as Motion to Exclude indicated in Dkt. No. 13 Certain Opinions In 559-41. See Dkt. 14 Dr. Bulterman’s No. 917.) Rebuttal Expert 15 Report Served on Behalf of ASUS 16 Concerning U.S. 17 Patent No. 7,529,806 18 900-6 / (899-12) Exhibit 15 to the References to certain GRANTED IN Declaration of technical products and PART AND 19 Caitlyn N. source code throughout DENIED IN PART Bingaman in (contains 20 Support of Philips’s confidential product 21 Reply In Support of information as Motion to Exclude indicated in Dkt. No. 22 Certain Opinions In 917-3. See Dkt. No. Dr. Bulterman’s 917.) 23 Rebuttal Expert Report Served on 24 Behalf of ASUS 25 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 26 7,529,806 900-7 / (899-14) Exhibit 16 to the References to certain GRANTED IN 27 Declaration of technical products and PART AND Bingaman in (contains 1 Support of Philips’s confidential product 2 Reply In Support of information as Motion to Exclude indicated in Dkt. No. 3 Certain Opinions In 917-4. See Dkt. No. Dr. Bulterman’s 917.) 4 Rebuttal Expert Report Served on 5 Behalf of ASUS 6 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 7 7,529,806 900-8 / (899-16) Exhibit 17 to the References to certain GRANTED IN 8 Declaration of technical products and PART AND Caitlyn N. source code throughout DENIED IN PART 9 Bingaman in (contains 10 Support of Philips’s confidential product Reply In Support of information as 11 Motion to Exclude indicated in Dkt. No. Certain Opinions In 853-8. See Dkt. No. 12 Dr. Bulterman’s 917.) Rebuttal Expert 13 Report Served on 14 Behalf of ASUS Concerning U.S. 15 Patent No. 7,529,806 16 900-10 / (899-18) Exhibit 19 to the References to certain DENIED 17 Declaration of persons throughout (No supporting Caitlyn N. declaration filed. 18 Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- Support of Philips’s 5(e)(1).) 19 Reply In Support of Motion to Exclude 20 Certain Opinions In 21 Dr. Bulterman’s Rebuttal Expert 22 Report Served on Behalf of ASUS 23 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 24 7,529,806 25 900-11 / (899-20) Exhibit 20 to the Pages 111-12 DENIED Declaration of (No supporting 26 Caitlyn N. declaration filed. Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- 27 Support of Philips’s 5(e)(1).) Motion to Exclude 1 Certain Opinions In 2 Dr. Bulterman’s Rebuttal Expert 3 Report Served on Behalf of ASUS 4 Concerning U.S. Patent No. 5 7,529,806 6 900-12 / (899-22) Exhibit 21 to the References to certain DENIED Declaration of persons throughout (No supporting 7 Caitlyn N. declaration filed. Bingaman in See Civ. L.R. 79- 8 Support of Philips’s 5(e)(1).) Reply In Support of 9 Motion to Exclude 10 Certain Opinions In Dr. Bulterman’s 11 Rebuttal Expert Report Served on 12 Behalf of ASUS Concerning U.S. 13 Patent No. 14 7,529,806 900-13 / (899-24) Exhibit 22 to the References to certain GRANTED IN 15 Declaration of persons PART AND Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART 16 Bingaman in Pages 109-10 (contains 17 Support of Philips’s confidential product Reply In Support of information as 18 Motion to Exclude indicated in Dkt. No. Certain Opinions In 853-9. See Dkt. No. 19 Dr. Bulterman’s 917.) Rebuttal Expert 20 Report Served on 21 Behalf of ASUS Concerning U.S. 22 Patent No. 7,529,806 23 900-14 / (899-26) Exhibit 23 to the References to certain GRANTED IN Declaration of products, persons, and PART AND 24 Caitlyn N. source code throughout DENIED IN PART 25 Bingaman in (contains Support of Philips’s confidential product 26 Reply In Support of information as Motion to Exclude indicated in Dkt. No. 27 Certain Opinions In 918-3. See Dkt. No. 1 Rebuttal Expert Report Served on 9 Behalf of ASUS Concerning U.S. 3 Patent No. 7,529,806 4 900-15 / (899-28) Exhibit 24 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 5 Declaration of PART AND Caitlyn N. DENIED IN PART 6 Bingaman in (contains Support of Philips’s confidential product 7 Reply In Support of information as Motion to Exclude indicated in Dkt. No. 8 Certain Opinions In 918-4. See Dkt. No. 9 Dr. Bulterman’s 917.) Rebuttal Expert 10 Report Served on Behalf of ASUS 1] Concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 | i. CONCLUSION 2 15 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ administrative motions to 16 file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)\(1), documents filed under seal as to which 17 the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The Court DIRECTS the parties to O a 18 file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied, as indicated 19 in the chart above, within seven days from the date of this order. Alternatively, the parties may 20 || file a new motion to seal within seven days of this Order. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 |! Dated: April 13, 2020 24 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 25 26 27 28