decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Apple v. Samsung: Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal References Tribbles in Order Re Sealing ~pj
Friday, February 01 2013 @ 03:27 PM EST

More denials from the magistrate judge in Apple v. Samsung on new requests from the parties to seal documents. More sealing requests, you ask? Does this ever end? Yes, another long list, mostly denied. To the magistrate judge, the Hon. Paul Grewal, it feels like an invasion of Tribbles -- everywhere where he looks, there are more of them:
"What tribbles are to the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, and Mr. Spock, the parties’ ever-multiplying sealing and redaction requests are to this case, Judge Koh, and the undersigned."
I know. All of a sudden, you like him.

: )

But Apple and Samsung must be groaning. The trouble with Tribbles, of course, is that there's no seeming end to them -- "they are born pregnant" and threaten to consume all the onboard supplies, but Judge Grewal, like Spock, is immune to their effects, so he refuses most of the requests, saying over and over that the parties have failed to show in a particularized way how revealing the materials would be harmful.

But as I read the list I can see how they might be, particularly because the parties are suing each other all over the place, not just in this one courtroom. Having said that, as a member of the public, I'm personally looking forward to reading every last one of them. I find these Tribbles adorably appealing.

His orders:

02/01/2013 - 2222 - ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 600 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 613 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 781 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 782 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 801 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 819 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 857 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 934 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 939 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 965 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 984 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 986 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 987 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 990 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 994 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 996 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1041 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 1044 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 1047 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1056 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1067 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1074 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1088 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 2149 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, granting 2141 . (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2013) Modified on 2/1/2013 (ofr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2013)

02/01/2013 - 2223 - ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENT IN PART by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 2117 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2013) (Entered: 02/01/2013)

As you can see, he lets them seal some documents and some in part and some he'll let them try again if they file a more particularized motion. But here's a few items from the long list that he won't let them seal. Do you think if you were Apple or Samsung, you'd prefer that we in the peanut gallery -- and competitors and their lawyers -- not get to read the following from this excerpted list?
  • Confidential, unredacted version of the Declaration of Christopher E. Price ISO Motion to Strike (“Price Declaration”)

    Samsung’s request on Apple’s behalf to redact portions of the declaration is DENIED. The proposed redactions consist of descriptions of the exhibits supporting Samsung’s motion to strike and Apple’s problematic discovery actions. The content of the redactions does not disclose any confidential or proprietary information. Apple has failed to make a particularized showing how this information would be detrimental if revealed….

  • For the reasons explained below, Samsung’s and Apple’s requests to seal or redact portions of the following exhibits are DENIED.
    • Exhibit 2 is an expert report from Stephen Gray that discusses the invalidity of two of Apple’s patents. The contents include information about the details of the patents, which are publicly available. The proposed redactions consist of references to Mitsubishi’s DiamondTouch26 technology, which also is not confidential. Apple has failed to make a particularized showing of harm that would result if these statements were revealed.

    • Neither Samsung nor Apple filed a supporting declaration to seal Exhibits 3, 4, or 5.

    • Exhibit 11 is an expert report from Andries Van Dam that discusses the invalidity of Apple’s patents. The contents include information about the details of the patents, which are publicly available. The proposed redactions consist primarily of publications describing touchscreen technology that are not confidential.

    • Exhibit 12 is an expert report from Dr. Brian Von Herzen in which he discusses the invalidity of Apple’s patents. The report primarily contains descriptions of patents, which are publicly available documents. The parties’ respective proposed redactions also primarily consist of descriptions of patents or whether inventors copied previous technology. Neither of these types of information are the appropriate subject matter for sealing.

    • Exhibit 13 is a letter between Apple’s and Samsung’s attorneys regarding the expert reports. The letter references the various reports and the patents and publications used in those reports to support the invalidity contentions. This information is not confidential and neither party has made a sufficient particularized showing that harm would result if the letter were disclosed

    • Exhibit 16 contains Samsung’s responses to Apple’s second set of interrogatories. Samsung’s responses consist primarily of denials that Samsung’s products do not infringe Apple’s patents. The exhibit contains content that is neither proprietary nor confidential, and Samsung has failed to make a particularized showing that this information would be detrimental if disclosed.

    • Exhibit 17 consists of a rebuttal expert report from Stephen Gray in which he discusses how Samsung’s products do not infringe Apple’s patents. The report includes information about publicly available features of the devices and publicly available information about the patents at issue. The proposed redactions concern Samsung’s “hold still” feature, which is publicly available on its devices. Samsung has not made a particularized showing that this information would be detrimental if disclosed.

    • Exhibit 18 is a rebuttal expert report from Dr. Brian Von Herzen in which he discusses how Samsung’s products do not infringe Apple’s patents. The report includes information about publicly available features of the devices and publicly available information about the patents at issue. Samsung’s proposed redactions include Apple’s prosecution history and limitations to its touch screen technology, which are not confidential. Apple’s proposed redactions include inventors’ statements about the nature of the patented products. Neither Apple nor Samsung has made a particularized showing that all of the content of their proposed redactions would be harmful if disclosed.

    • Exhibit 19 is a rebuttal expert report from Stephen Gray in which he discusses how Samsung’s products do not infringe Apple’s patents. The report includes information about publicly available features of the devices and publicly available information about the patents at issue. Samsung’s proposed redactions consist of references to the ability of a user to use two fingers to scroll on a touch screen, which is a publicly available feature of the devices. Apple’s proposed redactions consist of statements about patent conception dates. Neither party has provided a particularized showing how this information would be detrimental if disclosed….

  • Exhibit 23 contains excerpts from an expert report from Woodward Yang regarding Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s patents. Samsung offers no supporting declaration for its proposed redactions. Apple seeks to redact information about how many of its components it buys from Samsung; references to its responses regarding what operating systems are available in its products and how much the programs differ; and publicly available features from its devices. Apple has not made a particularized showing of how this information would be detrimental if disclosed….

  • Exhibit 9 is an excerpt from an expert report by Woodward Yang regarding Apple’s infringement of Samsung’s patents. Apple seeks to redact portions describing its use of Samsung components in its devices, information about the operating systems in its devices, and its arguments regarding whether its products infringe. Apple has not made a particularized showing of how this information would be detrimental if disclosed.
I know I'd be interested in reading all these experts telling all the ways Samsung doesn't infringe Apple's patents, including the expert stating that some of them are invalid. And wouldn't everyone like to know exactly what Samsung components Apple uses in its products or what Apple did in discovery that was "problematic"? And I know without asking you that you are interested in details on "information about the operating systems in its devices".

For Apple, this case has been a bit of a worst nightmare, in that the more people learn about the nuts and bolts of the company's business, the less magical it all appears. It's like pulling back the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

Magistrate judges don't count that as a good reason to seal, of course, but to tell you the truth, I feel for Apple. This lawsuit has been detrimental to its brand in a very big way. Even if they someday collect a billion dollars, which I doubt, things will never be the same.

But then again, Apple initiated this lawsuit, and once you file a lawsuit, the other side does get to rummage through your underwear drawer, and in the US, you are gambling that a judge will let you keep certain materials from the public. In this courtroom, that gamble failed.


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )