throbber
Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 1 of 46
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` Sean Pak (Bar No. 219032)
` seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
` Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649)
` melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com
` James Judah (Bar No. 257112)
` jamesjudah@quinnemanuel.com
` Lindsay Cooper (Bar No. 287125)
` lindsaycooper@quinnemanuel.com
` Iman Lordgooei (Bar No. 251320)
` imanlordgooei@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-4788
`Telephone:
`(415) 875-6600
`Facsimile:
`(415) 875-6700
`
` Marc Kaplan (pro hac vice)
` marckaplan@quinnemanuel.com
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Ste 2700
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone:
`(312) 705-7400
`Facsimile:
`(312) 705-7401
`
`Attorneys for GOOGLE LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`Related to CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07559-WHA
`
`CHART C TO GOOGLE LLC’S
`REVISED OMNIBUS ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S ORDER
`RE NEW MOTIONS TO SEAL (DKT. 846)
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`CHART C TO GOOGLE'S REVISED OMNIBUS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 2 of 46
`
`CHART C: Damages-Related Information
`
`
`
`
`Dkt.
`
`Document
`
`482-12 Exhibit 21 to
`Google’s MSJ
`
`Portions to
`be Sealed
`
`Portions
`outlined in
`green boxes
`
`Narrowing from
`Original Request to
`Seal
`Removed request to
`seal references to
`source code file names
`for playback of queues
`in YouTube apps,
`description of the
`operation of autoplay
`and casting
`functionalities in
`YouTube apps, and
`excerpts from internal
`Google documents
`regarding queues in
`YouTube apps when
`not casting and in the
`MDx context.
`
`Narrowing from Revised
`Request to Seal
`
`Basis for Sealing1
`
`None
`
`Page 167: Contains references to the
`existence and terms of confidential patent
`licensing and purchase agreements that
`were not at issue at trial and thus not
`discussed in open court. Google considers
`and treats this information as highly
`confidential business information, and does
`not disclose this information publicly. The
`public disclosure of such agreements and
`their terms would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and its ability to
`negotiate future licensing agreements by
`giving competitors access and insight into
`Google’s highly confidential business
`thinking, asymmetrical information about
`Google’s patent licensing and purchasing
`strategies, and Google’s prior patent
`licensing and purchase terms to other
`entities.
`
`Page 3: Contains information regarding
`terms of a confidential, non-binding term
`sheet between Google and Sonos exchanged
`during license negotiations between the
`parties. The public disclosure of such
`information would harm Google’s
`
`511-3 Google’s
`Opposition to
`Sonos’s Motion
`to Realign the
`Parties
`
`None
`
`Portions
`outlined in
`pink boxes
`
`Removed request to seal
`terms of Service
`Integration Agreement
`between the parties.
`
`
`1 All pin cites refer to internal document page and exhibit numbers.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`Entire
`Document
`
`None
`
`None
`
`511-4 Exhibit 1 to the
`Declaration of
`Jocelyn Ma in
`Support of
`Google’s
`Opposition to
`Sonos’s Motion
`to Realign the
`Parties
`
`590-2
`
`Sonos’s Motion
`in Limine No. 1
`
`Portions
`outlined in
`green boxes
`
`None
`
`Removed request to
`seal scaled lump-sum
`royalty amounts for
`the zone scene patents
`based on a Google
`patent agreement and
`reference to the
`Outland Research
`Agreement, which was
`discussed at trial.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`competitive standing and its ability to
`negotiate future licensing agreements by
`giving competitors access and insight into
`Google’s highly confidential business
`thinking, asymmetrical information about
`Google’s licensing strategies, and Google’s
`prior licensing terms.
`Document comprising a confidential, non-
`binding term sheet between Google and
`Sonos exchanged during license
`negotiations between the parties, the public
`disclosure of which would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and its ability to
`negotiate future licensing agreements by
`giving competitors access and insight into
`Google’s highly confidential business
`thinking, asymmetrical information about
`Google’s licensing strategies, and Google’s
`prior licensing terms.
`Pages 4, 6: Contains references to the
`existence and terms of confidential patent
`licensing and purchase agreements that
`were not at issue at trial and thus not
`discussed in open court. Google considers
`and treats this information as highly
`confidential business information, and does
`not disclose this information publicly. The
`public disclosure of such agreements and
`their terms would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and its ability to
`negotiate future licensing agreements by
`giving competitors access and insight into
`Google’s highly confidential business
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 4 of 46
`
`
`
`590-4 Exhibit B to
`Declaration of
`Joseph R. Kolker
`in Support of
`Sonos’s Motion
`in Limine No. 1
`
`Portions
`outlined in
`red boxes
`
`Removed request to
`seal entirety of
`document.
`
`Removed request to seal
`cost of implement non-
`infringing alternatives,
`lump-sum nature of
`Google’s agreements,
`existence of Garnet
`settlement agreement
`(which was disclosed
`publicly in connection
`with litigation), identities
`of certain companies with
`which Google entered into
`agreements (AST and IIF)
`as Google’s involvement
`with them has been
`disclosed publicly through
`litigation or otherwise,
`and the nature of the
`agreements (purchase
`agreements).
`
`thinking, asymmetrical information about
`Google’s patent licensing and purchasing
`strategies, and Google’s prior patent
`licensing and purchase terms to other
`entities. Accordingly, if this information
`were made public, Google’s competitive
`standing would be harmed.
`Pages 180-182, 184, 185, 187, 190, 193,
`202-204: Contain references to the
`existence and terms of confidential patent
`licensing and purchase agreements that
`were not at issue at trial and thus not
`discussed in open court. Google considers
`and treats this information as highly
`confidential business information, and does
`not disclose this information publicly. The
`public disclosure of such agreements and
`their terms would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and its ability to
`negotiate future licensing agreements by
`giving competitors access and insight into
`Google’s highly confidential business
`thinking, asymmetrical information about
`Google’s patent licensing and purchasing
`strategies, and Google’s prior patent
`licensing and purchase terms to other
`entities.
`
`Page 177: Contains information regarding
`terms of a confidential, non-binding term
`sheet between Google and Sonos exchanged
`during license negotiations between the
`parties, the public disclosure of which
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 5 of 46
`
`
`
`would harm Google’s competitive standing
`and its ability to negotiate future licensing
`agreements by giving competitors access
`and insight into Google’s highly
`confidential business thinking,
`asymmetrical information about Google’s
`licensing strategies, and Google’s prior
`licensing terms to other entities.
`
`Pages 163, 168: Contain compensation
`information for Google engineers. Google
`considers and treats this information as
`confidential business information, and does
`not disclose this information publicly. The
`public disclosure of such compensation
`information would harm Google’s
`competitive standing as an employer by
`impairing future negotiations with other
`employees and undermining Google’s
`ability to hire or retain employees. It would
`also give competitors access to information
`that Google does not have similar access to
`about them, allowing them to gain a
`competitive advantage when hiring.
`
`Page 3: Contains references to the existence
`and terms of confidential patent licensing
`and purchase agreements that were not at
`issue at trial and thus not discussed in open
`court. Google considers and treats this
`information as highly confidential business
`information, and does not disclose this
`information publicly. The public disclosure
`
`590-5 Google’s
`Response to
`Sonos’s Motion
`in Limine No. 1
`
`
`
`Portions
`outlined in
`green boxes
`and
`highlighted
`in green
`
`Removed request to
`seal Mr. Bakewell’s
`royalty estimates
`based on adjustments
`to Mr. Malackowski’s
`damages figures and
`reference to the
`Outland Research
`
`None
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 6 of 46
`
`
`
`Agreement, which was
`discussed at trial.
`
`598-2 Google’s
`Response to
`Sonos’s Motion
`in Limine No. 4
`
`Portions
`highlighted
`in green
`
`None
`
`None
`
`
`
`5
`
`of such agreements and their terms would
`harm Google’s competitive standing and its
`ability to negotiate future licensing
`agreements by giving competitors access
`and insight into Google’s highly
`confidential business thinking,
`asymmetrical information about Google’s
`patent licensing and purchasing strategies,
`and Google’s prior patent licensing and
`purchase terms to other entities.
`
`Pages 5, 6: Contains information regarding
`terms of a confidential, non-binding term
`sheet between Google and Sonos exchanged
`during license negotiations between the
`parties, the public disclosure of which
`would harm Google’s competitive standing
`and its ability to negotiate future licensing
`agreements by giving competitors access
`and insight into Google’s highly
`confidential business thinking,
`asymmetrical information about Google’s
`licensing strategies, and Google’s prior
`licensing terms to other entities.
`Page 7: Contains information regarding
`terms of a confidential, non-binding term
`sheet between Google and Sonos exchanged
`during license negotiations between the
`parties, the public disclosure of which
`would harm Google’s competitive standing
`and its ability to negotiate future licensing
`agreements by giving competitors access
`and insight into Google’s highly
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 7 of 46
`
`
`
`598-3 Exhibit 4 to the
`Declaration of
`James Judah in
`Support of
`Google’s
`Response to
`Sonos’s Motion
`in Limine No. 4
`
`598-4 Exhibit 8 to Judah
`Declaration in
`Support of
`Google’s
`Response to
`Sonos’s Motion
`in Limine No. 4
`
`None
`
`Portions
`outlined in
`green boxes
`
`Removed request to seal
`market share percentage
`for Android.
`
`Entire
`Document
`
`None
`
`None
`
`605-3 Exhibit D to the
`Declaration of
`Joseph Kolker in
`
`Portions
`outlined in
`red boxes
`
`Removed approximate
`total number of
`Google Home app
`
`Further removed requests
`to seal excerpt from
`YouTube Remote
`
`
`
`6
`
`confidential business thinking,
`asymmetrical information about Google’s
`licensing strategies, and Google’s prior
`licensing terms to other entities.
`Page 30: Contains Google internal
`confidential information regarding number
`of installations of the Google Home app on
`Android, the public disclosure of which
`would give competitors with same or
`similar products a competitive advantage
`by, for example, providing information
`regarding download trends. Although the
`total number of Google Home app
`applications between November 2020 and
`Q4 2022 was discussed during trial, the data
`was not discussed at this granular level on a
`quarterly basis.
`
`Document comprising a confidential, non-
`binding term sheet between Google and
`Sonos exchanged during license
`negotiations between the parties, the public
`disclosure of which would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and its ability to
`negotiate future licensing agreements by
`giving competitors access and insight into
`Google’s highly confidential business
`thinking, asymmetrical information about
`Google’s licensing strategies, and Google’s
`prior licensing terms to other entities.
`Pages 69, 108-110: Contains non-public
`information regarding revenue for YouTube
`applications, accused instrumentalities, and
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 8 of 46
`
`Support of
`Sonos’s
`Opposition to
`Google’s Motion
`in Limine No. 1
`
`installations over
`infringement period
`and excerpts of
`internal documents
`regarding multiroom
`audio.
`
`presentation regarding;
`royalty estimates based on
`“quantitative indicators;”
`identities of certain
`companies with which
`Google entered into
`agreements (AST, IIF) as
`Google’s involvement
`with them has been
`disclosed publicly through
`litigation or otherwise;
`and certain internal
`business documents
`regarding speaker
`comparisons, and internal
`documents regarding
`Google’s Cast SDK.
`
`Pixel products. As Google is a publicly-
`traded company, this information should
`remain under seal because it was provided
`at a more granular level of detail that is not
`disclosed in Google’s public SEC filings.
`The public disclosure of such information
`would harm Google’s competitive standing
`and create a risk of injury by providing
`Google’s competitors with information that
`Google does not have similar access to
`about them, allowing the competitors to
`gain a competitive advantage in the market
`place, including by giving competitors an
`understanding of Google’s product pricing
`and unit economics, and allowing them to
`formulate specific pricing/discounting
`strategies for their own products. In
`addition, knowledge of Google’s highly
`confidential revenue information for these
`products that is more geographically limited
`than what is publicly reported would
`provide competitors with detailed
`information as to the success or failure of
`these products with customers in the U.S.
`and would give competitors better insights
`into how they should focus their own
`product strategies in order to better compete
`with Google in different geographic
`markets. Disclosure would also reveal to
`suppliers, retailers, and other parties
`information they could use to gain an
`advantage when negotiating contracts and
`agreements with Google.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 9 of 46
`
`
`Page 95: Contains references to the
`existence and terms of confidential patent
`purchase agreements from Allied Security
`Trust that were not at issue at trial and thus
`not discussed in open court. Google
`considers and treats this information as
`highly confidential business information,
`and does not disclose this information
`publicly. The public disclosure of such
`agreements and their terms would harm
`Google’s competitive standing and its
`ability to negotiate future licensing
`agreements by giving competitors access
`and insight into Google’s highly
`confidential business thinking,
`asymmetrical information about Google’s
`patent licensing and purchasing strategies,
`and Google’s prior patent licensing and
`purchase terms to other entities.
`
`Page 103: Contains information regarding
`confidential patent licensing negotiations
`between Google and Sonos. Google
`considers and treats this information as
`highly confidential business information,
`and does not disclose this information
`publicly. The public disclosure of such
`financial information would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and its ability to
`negotiate future licensing agreements by
`giving competitors access and insight into
`Google’s highly confidential business
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 10 of 46
`
`thinking, asymmetrical information about
`Google’s licensing strategies, and Google’s
`prior licensing terms to other entities.
`
`Pages 99-101: Contain references to
`confidential internal surveys, conjoint
`studies, and lifetime value analyses
`regarding Google products that were not
`discussed during trial in open court. Google
`considers and treats this information as
`highly confidential business information,
`and does not disclose this information
`publicly. The public disclosure of such
`financial information would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and create a risk of
`injury by providing Google’s competitors
`with information that Google does not have
`similar access to about them and allowing
`the competitors to gain a competitive
`advantage in the market place, including by
`releasing same or similar products. It would
`also provide Google’s competitors with an
`unfair advantage by allowing them to
`benefit from Google’s research and
`development to compete against Google.
`
`Pages 104-106: Contains an analysis of
`indirect revenue from Google Pixel devices
`and Google TV. Google considers and
`treats this information as highly confidential
`business information, and does not disclose
`this information publicly. The public
`disclosure of such financial information
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 11 of 46
`
`would harm Google’s competitive standing
`and create a risk of injury by providing
`Google’s competitors with information that
`Google does not have similar access to
`about them, allowing the competitors to
`gain a competitive advantage in the market
`place, including by giving competitors an
`understanding of Google’s product pricing
`and unit economics, and allow them to
`formulate specific pricing/discounting
`strategies for their own products. In
`addition, knowledge of Google’s highly
`confidential revenue information for these
`products regarding specific geographic
`areas would provide competitors with
`detailed information as to the success or
`failure of these products with customers in
`the U.S. and would give competitors better
`insights into how they should focus their
`own product strategies in order to better
`compete with Google in different
`geographic markets. Disclosure would also
`reveal to suppliers, retailers, and other
`parties information that they could use to
`gain an advantage when negotiating
`contracts and agreements with Google.
`
`In addition, this information was excluded
`from the record at trial as more prejudicial
`than probative and thus was neither
`discussed publicly nor relied upon by the
`jury in calculating damages.
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 12 of 46
`
`Page 102: Contains references to business
`strategy and future plans for Google
`products, and/or technology that Google is
`developing but has not yet released. Google
`considers and treats this information as
`highly confidential business information,
`and does not disclose this information
`publicly. The public disclosure of such
`financial information would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and create a risk of
`injury by providing Google’s competitors
`with access and insight into Google’s highly
`confidential business thinking,
`asymmetrical information about Google’s
`business strategies, and future business
`plans, which could allow a competitor to
`develop and launch the same or similar
`technologies to unfairly compete against
`Google.
`
`Pages 113, 114, 118: Contains references to
`internal, non-public usage metrics for the
`YouTube applications and installations data
`for Google applications identified by each
`fiscal quarter. Information regarding the
`YouTube applications was not at issue
`during trial given that the cloud queue
`patents were invalidated, and the data for
`the Google applications was not discussed
`at trial in open court at this level of
`granularity. Google considers and treats
`this information as highly confidential
`business information, and does not disclose
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 13 of 46
`
`
`
`this information publicly. As Google is a
`publicly-traded company, this information
`should remain under seal because it was
`provided at a more granular level of detail
`that is not disclosed in Google’s public SEC
`filings. The public disclosure of this
`information could harm Google’s
`competitive standing and create a risk of
`injury by providing competitors with access
`to information that Google does not have
`similar access to about them, and could
`allow competitors to gain an unfair
`advantage over Google in future business or
`licensing negotiations that may be affected
`by metrics and usage information of
`Google’s applications. It may also allow
`competitors and/or bad actors to manipulate
`or gain insight into how Google maintains
`its data.
`Pages 9, 108-110: Contains highly
`confidential information regarding revenue
`for YouTube applications and accused
`mobile and tablet products. Information
`regarding the YouTube applications was not
`at issue during trial given that the cloud
`queue patents were invalidated, and the
`revenue information for the accused
`hardware products were not utilized by
`either party to calculate damages and was
`not disclosed at trial. As Google is a
`publicly-traded company, this information
`should remain under seal because it was
`provided at a more granular level of detail
`
`Portions
`outlined in
`red boxes
`
`609-4 Exhibit A to the
`Declaration of
`Joseph Kolker in
`Support of
`Sonos’s
`Opposition to
`Google’s Motion
`in Limine No. 2
`
`Removed approximate
`total number of
`Google Home app
`installations over
`infringement period
`and excerpts of
`internal documents
`regarding multiroom
`audio.
`
`Further removed requests
`to seal excerpt from older
`YouTube Remote
`presentation regarding;
`royalty estimates based on
`“quantitative indicators;”
`identities of certain
`companies with which
`Google entered into
`agreements (AST, IIF) as
`Google’s involvement
`with them has been
`disclosed publicly through
`litigation or otherwise;
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 14 of 46
`
`and certain internal
`business documents
`regarding speaker
`comparisons, and internal
`documents regarding
`Google’s Cast SDK.
`
`13
`
`that is not disclosed in Google’s public SEC
`filings. The public disclosure of such
`information would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and create a risk of
`injury by providing Google’s competitors
`with information that Google does not have
`similar access to about them, allowing the
`competitors to gain a competitive advantage
`in the market place, including by giving
`competitors an understanding of Google’s
`product pricing and unit economics, and
`allowing them to formulate specific
`pricing/discounting strategies for their own
`products. In addition, knowledge of
`Google’s highly confidential revenue
`information for these products that is more
`geographically limited than what is publicly
`reported would provide competitors with
`detailed information as to the success or
`failure of these products with customers in
`the U.S. and would give competitors better
`insights into how they should focus their
`own product strategies in order to better
`compete with Google in different
`geographic markets. Disclosure would also
`reveal to suppliers, retailers, and other
`parties information they could use to gain
`an advantage when negotiating contracts
`and agreements with Google.
`
`Page 10: Contains non-public information
`regarding number of units sold of Google’s
`accused hardware products on a quarterly
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 15 of 46
`
`basis, the public disclosure of which would
`give competitors with same or similar
`products a competitive advantage by, for
`example, providing information regarding
`sales trends. Although the total number of
`units between November 2019 and Q4 2022
`was discussed during trial, the data was not
`discussed at this granular level on a
`quarterly basis, nor does Google provide
`this level of detail in its public SEC filings.
`
`Page 66, 95: Contains references to the
`existence and terms of confidential patent
`licensing and purchase agreements that
`were not at issue at trial and thus not
`discussed in open court. Google considers
`and treats this information as highly
`confidential business information, and does
`not disclose this information publicly. The
`public disclosure of such agreements and
`their terms would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and its ability to
`negotiate future licensing agreements by
`giving competitors access and insight into
`Google’s highly confidential business
`thinking, asymmetrical information about
`Google’s patent licensing and purchasing
`strategies, and Google’s prior patent
`licensing and purchase terms to other
`entities.
`
`Page 103: Contains information regarding
`confidential patent licensing negotiations
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 16 of 46
`
`between Google and Sonos. Google
`considers and treats this information as
`highly confidential business information,
`and does not disclose this information
`publicly. The public disclosure of such
`financial information would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and its ability to
`negotiate future licensing agreements by
`giving competitors access and insight into
`Google’s highly confidential business
`thinking, asymmetrical information about
`Google’s licensing strategies, and Google’s
`prior licensing terms to other entities.
`
`Pages 99-101: Contains references to
`internal surveys, conjoint studies, and
`lifetime value analyses regarding Google
`products that were not discussed during trial
`in open court. Google considers and treats
`this information as highly confidential
`business information, and does not disclose
`this information publicly. The public
`disclosure of such financial information
`would harm Google’s competitive standing
`and create a risk of injury by providing
`Google’s competitors with information that
`Google does not have similar access to
`about them, allowing the competitors to
`gain a competitive advantage in the market
`place, including by releasing same or
`similar products. It would also provide
`Google’s competitors with an unfair
`advantage by allowing them to benefit from
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 17 of 46
`
`Google’s research and development to
`compete against Google.
`
`Pages 104-106: Contains an analysis of
`indirect revenue from Google Pixel devices
`and Google TV. Google considers and
`treats this information as highly confidential
`business information, and does not disclose
`this information publicly. The public
`disclosure of such financial information
`would harm Google’s competitive standing
`and create a risk of injury by providing
`Google’s competitors with information that
`Google does not have similar access to
`about them, allowing the competitors to
`gain a competitive advantage in the market
`place, including by giving competitors an
`understanding of Google’s product pricing
`and unit economics, and allow them to
`formulate specific pricing/discounting
`strategies for their own products. In
`addition, knowledge of Google’s highly
`confidential revenue information for these
`products regarding specific geographic
`areas would provide competitors with
`detailed information as to the success or
`failure of these products with customers in
`the U.S. and would give competitors better
`insights into how they should focus their
`own product strategies in order to better
`compete with Google in different
`geographic markets. Disclosure would also
`reveal to suppliers, retailers, and other
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 18 of 46
`
`parties information that they could use to
`gain an advantage when negotiating
`contracts and agreements with Google. In
`addition, this information was excluded
`from the record at trial as more prejudicial
`than probative and thus was neither
`discussed publicly nor relied upon by the
`jury in calculating damages.
`
`Page 102: Contains references to business
`strategy and future plans for Google
`products, and/or technology that Google is
`developing but has not yet released. Google
`considers and treats this information as
`highly confidential business information,
`and does not disclose this information
`publicly. The public disclosure of such
`financial information would harm Google’s
`competitive standing and create a risk of
`injury by providing Google’s competitors
`with access and insight into Google’s highly
`confidential business thinking,
`asymmetrical information about Google’s
`business strategies, and future business
`plans, which could allow a competitor to
`develop and launch the same or similar
`technologies to unfairly compete against
`Google.
`
`Pages 113, 114, 118 Contains references to
`internal, non-public usage metrics for the
`YouTube applications and installations data
`for Google applications identified by each
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 19 of 46
`
`
`
`fiscal quarter. Information regarding the
`YouTube applications was not at issue
`during trial and the data for the Google
`applications was not discussed at trial in
`open court at this level of granularity.
`Google considers and treats this information
`as highly confidential business information,
`and does not disclose this information
`publicly. As Google is a publicly-traded
`company, this information should remain
`under seal because it was provided at a
`more granular level of detail that is not
`disclosed in Google’s public SEC filings.
`The public disclosure of this information
`could harm Google’s competitive standing
`and create a risk of injury by providing
`competitors with access to information that
`Google does not have similar access to
`about them, and could allow competitors to
`gain an unfair advantage over Google in
`future business or licensing negotiations
`that may be affected by metrics and usage
`information of Google’s applications. It
`may also allow competitors and/or bad
`actors to manipulate or gain insight into
`how Google maintains its data.
`Page 129: Contains compensation
`information for Google engineers and the
`number of engineer hours required to
`implement Google’s proposed non-
`infringing alternatives. Google considers
`and treats this information as confidential
`business information, and does not disclose
`
`Portions
`outlined in
`red boxes
`
`612-3 Exhibit 3 to the
`Declaration of
`Jocelyn Ma in
`Support of
`Google’s Motion
`in
`Limine No. 3
`
`Removed requests to
`seal costs of
`implementing
`Google’s proposed
`non-infringing
`alternatives,
`mechanics of
`
`Further removed requests
`to seal costs of
`implementing non-
`infringing alternatives,
`Google’s firmware update
`schedule, and royalty
`figures from which one
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 854 Filed 08/09/23 Page 20 of 46
`
`
`
`could deduce revenue
`information for the
`YouTube application.
`
`Further removed request
`to seal amount of cash on
`hand.
`
`implementing
`Google’s proposed
`non-infringing
`alternatives, and Mr.
`Malackowski’s
`opinion on the total
`royalty rate for the
`’033 patent.
`
`Removed request to
`seal the fact that
`Google has lost money
`on accused products
`and the amount of
`Google’s cash on
`hand.
`
`
`616-3
`
`Sonos’s
`Opposition to
`Google’s Motion
`in Limine No. 4
`
`Portions
`outlined in
`green boxes
`
`this information publicly. The public
`disclosure of such compensation
`information would harm Google’s
`competitive standing as an employer by
`impairing future negotiations with other
`employees and undermining Google’s
`ability to hire or retain employees. It would
`also give competitors access to information
`that Google does not have similar access to
`about them, allowing them to gain a
`competitive advantage when hiring.
`Page 3, lines 3-4: Contains highly
`confidential information regarding the
`revenue numbers for the accused Pixel
`devices and accused media players and
`speaker products, the public disclosure of
`which would harm Google’s competitive
`standing and create a risk of injury by
`providing Google’s competitors with
`information that Google does not have
`similar access to about them, allowing the
`competitors to gain a competitive advantage
`in the market place, including by giving
`competitors an understanding of Google’s
`product pricing and unit economics, and
`allowing them to formulate specific
`pricing/discounting strategies for their own
`products. In addition, knowled

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket