Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1660
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 1645 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR
SEALING RELATED TO BORIS
TEKSLER
Consistent with this Court’s Order Regarding Sealing Motions, the Court finds that the
20
compensation terms of the licensing agreement is properly sealable as Apple and IBM have
21
established “compelling reasons” for its sealing. See ECF No. 1649 (citing Kamakana v. City and
22
Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). However, also consistent with this
23
Court’s Order Regarding Sealing Motions, the duration term of the license is not properly sealable.
24
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part IBM and Apple’s request to seal portions of DX2592 and
25
DX2593. The information designated by Apple may be sealed, except for section 7.1 of DX2592,
26
which discloses the duration term of the license.
27
28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART SEALING REQUEST
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
Dated: August 10, 2012
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART SEALING REQUEST
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
