# In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation

> District Court, N.D. California · April 13, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063708

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** April 13, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063708

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063708. Public record. Not legal advice.