`
`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