Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`No. C 20-06754 WHA
`No. C 21-07559 WHA
`
`
`OMNIBUS ORDER RE FINAL
`MOTIONS TO SEAL
`
`This omnibus order addresses the remaining omnibus motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 831,
`
`851). In accordance with prior orders, the parties have tailored their requests to seal
`
`considerably (see Dkt. Nos. 817, 846). At this stage, the requests largely involve many
`
`different filings of the same documents, and they have been granted at a higher rate than in past
`
`sealing orders (see Dkt. Nos. 334, 518). The Court again thanks Sonos and its counsel for the
`
`careful work narrowing its sealing requests (see Dkt. No. 846 at 1). For the reasons stated
`
`herein, Sonos’s omnibus motion to seal is GRANTED. The Court now thanks Google and its
`
`counsel for further narrowing its sealing requests and providing detailed charts (see Dkt.
`
`Nos. 852–54). For the reasons stated herein, Google’s omnibus motion to seal is GRANTED IN
`
`PART and DENIED IN PART.
`
`There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is
`
`entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
`
`Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only
`
`upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,
`
`LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the
`
`merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The compelling
`
`reasons standard applies to most judicial records. Evidentiary motions, such as motions in
`
`limine and Daubert motions, can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id. at 1098–
`
`1100.
`
`In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that
`
`explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that
`
`will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not
`
`sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the
`
`sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could
`
`result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would
`
`overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for
`
`sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons
`
`may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
`
`competitive standing,” especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information.
`
`See Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
`
`Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or
`
`nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or
`
`portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung
`
`Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5).
`
`“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain
`
`documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are
`
`sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c).
`
`1.
`
`SONOS’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 831).
`
`Regarding Sonos’s omnibus motion and related exhibits, this order rules as follows:
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`Dkt.
`No.
`831-4
`
`Document to be
`Sealed
`Proposed
`Term Sheet
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`831-5
`
`831-6
`
`Proposed
`Term Sheet
`Excerpt of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`3
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`GRANTED.
`
`Sonos seeks to seal the proposed term
`sheet containing the details of a licensing
`agreement that the parties explored but
`did not execute prior to this litigation.
`Google seeks to seal this document as
`well (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 854-3).
`
`As Sonos observes, solely the existence
`of this proposed term sheet was
`discussed in open court at trial, not its
`details (see Tr. 1038:6–1039:5).
`According to Sonos, “the parties were
`only able to consider a pre-litigation
`license agreement because of the
`understanding that those negotiations
`would be confidential, subject to an
`NDA, and subject to the restrictions on
`use imposed by Federal Rule of Evidence
`408” (Dkt. No. 831 at 4).
`
`Critically, the proposed term sheet was,
`at most, only tangentially related to the
`merits of this action. What’s more, its
`disclosure could foreseeably cause the
`parties competitive harm and chill others
`from engaging in negotiations that could
`avoid such costly and prolonged
`litigation in other circumstances.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4.
`
`Both parties seek to seal material from
`this expert report excerpt. For rulings on
`the additional material that Google seeks
`to seal, please refer to the entry for Dkt.
`No. 854-5.
`
`The material that Sonos seeks to seal, in
`blue boxing, is narrowly tailored and
`references confidential details of the
`proposed term sheet, which can be sealed
`for the reasons stated in the entry on the
`proposed term sheet above. See entry for
`Dkt. No. 831-4.
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`831-7
`
`Google’s Response
`to Sonos’s First
`Motion in Limine
`
`GRANTED.
`
`831-8
`
`GRANTED.
`
`The material that Sonos seeks to seal is
`narrowly tailored and references
`confidential details of the proposed term
`sheet, which can be sealed for the
`reasons stated in the entry on the
`proposed term sheet above. See entry for
`Dkt. No. 831-4.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7.
`
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7.
`
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7.
`
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7.
`
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7.
`
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7.
`
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7.
`
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7.
`
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4.
`
`
`Excerpt of
`Malackowski
`Supplemental
`Expert Report
`Excerpt of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`Excerpt of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`831-11 Google’s Response
`to Sonos’s First
`Motion in Limine
`Excerpt of
`Malackowski
`Supplemental
`Expert Report
`Excerpt of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`Proposed
`Term Sheet
`Proposed
`Term Sheet
`Proposed
`Term Sheet
`Excerpt of
`Malackowski
`Supplemental
`Expert Report
`Excerpt of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`Proposed
`Term Sheet
`Proposed
`Term Sheet
`
`831-9
`
`831-10
`
`831-12
`
`831-13
`
`831-14
`
`831-15
`
`831-16
`
`831-17
`
`831-18
`
`831-19
`
`831-20
`
`2.
`
`GOOGLE’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 851).
`
`Regarding Google’s omnibus motion and related exhibits, this order rules as follows:
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`Dkt.
`No.
`852-1
`
`Document to be
`Sealed
`Google’s
`Opposition to
`Sonos’s First
`Motion for
`Summary
`Judgment
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`852-2
`
`Excerpt of ’966
`Patent
`Infringement
`Contention Chart
`
`GRANTED.
`
`852-3
`
`Excerpt of
`Almeroth
`Supplemental
`Reply Expert
`Report
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`852-4
`
`Excerpt of
`Almeroth Opening
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED.
`
`5
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`GRANTED.
`
`This request is now narrowly tailored to a
`single source code flow for adding a
`device to a multizone group on page 10.
`
`As Google observes, “[a]lthough the
`general types of information that were
`included in a join_group command were
`discussed at trial, the source code
`implementation of the same was not
`disclosed” (Dkt. No. 852 at 5). Although
`the Court doubts that competitive harm
`would in fact befall Google if this
`straightforward implementation were
`disclosed, here, the public interest in this
`material is satisfied by the detailed
`discussion of join_group elsewhere.
`
`This request is now narrowly tailored to
`the source code flow above, as well as
`source code function calls and hierarchy
`information that is considerably more
`detailed. Again, the public interest in
`this material is satisfied by discussion of
`the relevant functions elsewhere. What’s
`more, the potential for competitive harm
`is higher here, as disclosure could enable
`others to replicate how Google’s code is
`structured or introduce security risks.
`
`The request to seal the function name at
`line 10 of page 33 is denied. Google has
`failed to demonstrate why that name is
`more sensitive than those of other
`functions disclosed in surrounding lines.
`The remainder of the request, with
`respect to the source code trace, is
`granted, seeing that it is narrowly
`tailored, disclosure could cause Google
`competitive harm, and the public interest
`is satisfied by discussion of the
`join_group functionality elsewhere.
`
`This request is now narrowly tailored to
`technical details regarding source code
`functionality and flow, disclosure of
`which could cause Google competitive
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`harm. Again, the public interest in this
`material is satisfied by discussion of
`associated functionality elsewhere.
`
`Seeing that Google has provided no
`explanation as to why disclosure of the
`name of the data object on page 11
`should be sealed, and Google omitted
`this material from the sealing chart (see
`Dkt. No. 853 at 1), this order declines to
`seal it. The remainder of Google’s
`request is granted. See entry for Dkt.
`No. 852-4.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4.
`
`
`As Google observes, it has removed
`requests to seal source code file names
`and descriptions of certain parameters
`(Dkt. No. 853 at 4). The bulk of the
`remaining names and parameters that it
`requests to seal were not at issue in this
`litigation and, as such, the public interest
`in their disclosure is de minimis.
`
`That said, “watchNextToken” was
`already disclosed (e.g., in the
`infringement contentions chart for the
`’033 patent), so there is no justification
`for sealing that parameter and associated
`description. Meanwhile, the
`“MdxRemoteQueueEvent” object was
`directly relevant to the discussion of
`remote queues and the MDx server in
`this litigation, and Google has failed to
`sufficiently explain why disclosure of
`this object and associated description
`would cause it harm. As such, Google’s
`request is denied with respect to this
`material.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 853-3.
`
`
`853-1
`
`Excerpt of ’033
`Patent
`Infringement
`Contention Chart
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`853-2
`
`853-3
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`Excerpt of ’033
`Patent
`Infringement
`Contention Chart
`Excerpt of
`Google’s Third
`Supplemental
`Objections and
`Responses to
`Sonos’s First Set of
`Interrogatories
`
`853-4
`
`Excerpt of
`Google’s Third
`Supplemental
`Objections and
`Responses to
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`853-5
`
`Sonos’s First Set of
`Interrogatories
`Excerpt of
`MacLellan
`Deposition
`Transcript
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`Google significantly reduced its request
`to seal so as to “[c]ontain[] testimony
`from a Google witness explaining the
`operation of specific source code lines
`for casting and stream transfer
`functionalities” (Dkt. No. 853 at 5). The
`explanation of those specific source code
`lines did not come up at trial, and there is
`little public interest in their disclosure, so
`the bulk of Google’s request is granted.
`
`The highlighted text on pages 114, 165,
`173 (only lines 17–25), 174, 183 (only
`lines 18–25), and 195–96, however, is
`not tailored to specific source code lines
`but rather contains generalized
`explanation of casting and stream
`transfer functionalities, which were
`discussed in support of Google’s
`defenses in dispositive motion practice
`and at trial. As such, there is substantial
`public interest, and little potential for
`harm, flowing from disclosure of such
`material. Google’s request as to these
`passages is denied.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4.
`
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4.
`
`
`Google is correct that the image on page
`38 contains information from an internal
`document involving the transmission,
`storage, and processing of security
`tokens and credentials not at issue in this
`litigation. But Bhattacharjee’s boxed
`items within this image were at issue in
`this litigation. The image should be
`redacted in a way that omits what was
`not at issue and keeps what was at issue.
`In other words, Bhattacharjee’s boxed
`items, as well as “Watch Next Service”
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`7
`
`853-6
`
`853-7
`
`853-8
`
`Excerpt of ’033
`Patent
`Infringement
`Contention Chart
`Excerpt of Schmidt
`Opening Expert
`Report
`Excerpt of
`Bhattacharjee
`Rebuttal Expert
`Report
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`and “Player Service,” should not be
`redacted.
`
`The remainder of Google’s request to
`seal is granted. The pertinent material
`was either not at issue in this litigation or
`was sufficiently technically detailed that
`it could cause competitive harm to
`Google, with the public interest served
`by surrounding description that Google
`does not seek to seal.
`
`Google seeks to seal an internal working
`document in which employees discussed
`casting with YouTube Music, public
`disclosure of which could cause Google
`competitive harm.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4.
`
`
`Google seeks to seal an internal Wiki
`entry discussing YouTube Music
`playback, public disclosure of which
`could cause Google competitive harm.
`
`Google seeks to seal the personal home
`address of a Google employee, public
`disclosure of which could cause privacy
`and security issues for that employee and
`his family.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 853-11.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4.
`
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 853-8. Note that
`the image that this order previously
`declined to redact in full is not included
`in this particular excerpt, so Google’s
`request as to this particular excerpt is
`granted in its entirety for the reasons
`stated previously.
`
`
`853-9
`
`YouTube Music
`Internal Document
`
`GRANTED.
`
`853-10
`
`Excerpt of ’033
`Patent
`Infringement
`Contention Chart
`853-11 YouTube Music
`Internal Wiki
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`853-12
`
`Excerpt of
`Nicholson
`Deposition
`Transcript
`
`853-14
`
`853-13 YouTube Music
`Internal Wiki
`Excerpt of
`Bhattacharjee
`Rebuttal Expert
`Report
`Excerpt of
`Bhattacharjee
`Rebuttal Expert
`Report
`
`853-15
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`853-16
`
`Internal YouTube
`Slide Deck
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4.
`
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4.
`
`
`Google seeks to seal an internal slide
`deck discussing the operation, design,
`and architecture of the Streaming Watch
`functionality with employee
`commentary, public disclosure of which
`could cause Google competitive harm.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4.
`
`
`Here, Google requests to seal more
`material than it did in a prior request
`involving the same excerpt. This
`document should be redacted as set out
`previously for the reasons discussed
`previously. See entry for Dkt. No. 853-3.
`
`The images on pages 15 and 18 should
`be redacted as set out previously for the
`reasons discussed previously. See entry
`for Dkt. No. 853-8.
`
`With respect to the image on page 18, the
`portion to the left of “MDx session
`server” and the descriptive bubbles
`should also be disclosed because they
`were directly at issue in this case and
`these steps were discussed in open court
`and in prior orders.
`
`This order otherwise grants the request to
`seal technical details regarding source
`code functionality and flow where the
`public interest in this material is satisfied
`by discussion of associated functionality
`elsewhere.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4.
`
`
`853-17
`
`853-18
`
`853-19
`
`853-20
`
`853-21
`
`Excerpt of Schmidt
`Opening Expert
`Report
`Excerpt of Schmidt
`Opening Expert
`Report
`Excerpt of ’033
`Patent
`Infringement
`Contention Chart
`Excerpt of
`Google’s Third
`Supplemental
`Objections and
`Responses to
`Sonos’s First Set of
`Interrogatories
`Bhattacharjee
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`853-22 Google’s Motion
`to Strike Slide
`Deck
`
`GRANTED.
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 10 of 18
`
`Google requests to seal “references to the
`existence and terms of patent licensing
`and purchase agreements that were not at
`issue at trial and thus not discussed in
`open court” (Dkt. No. 854 at 2). At the
`outset, only one agreement on one page
`is at issue here, and no terms are
`referenced. To eliminate the risk of
`competitive harm to Google that
`disclosure of the existence of this
`agreement could cause, all that is
`necessary is redaction of the name of the
`other party to the agreement. The mere
`fact that Google licensed patents related
`to the routing of data between devices —
`and that the agreement was finalized in
`January 2023 — does not subject Google
`to a risk of competitive harm. It is well-
`established that Google licenses such
`patents.
`
`Google seeks to seal a portion of a
`sentence related to the proposed term
`sheet discussed above. To mitigate the
`risk of competitive harm, however, all
`that is necessary is a narrower redaction,
`excluding the text after “sheet” in line 8.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4.
`
`Google seeks to seal “references to the
`existence and terms of patent licensing
`and purchase agreements that were not at
`issue at trial and thus not discussed in
`open court” (Dkt. No. 854 at 2). No
`terms are referenced here, however.
`
`To mitigate the risk of competitive harm
`that disclosure of the existence of these
`agreements could cause, all that is
`necessary is redaction of the names of the
`other parties to the agreements that are
`not public. It is well-established that
`Google licenses such patents, and the
`dates of these agreements could not give
`rise to competitive harm.
`
`
`
`
`854-1
`
`Excerpt of
`Bhattacharjee
`Rebuttal Expert
`Report
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`854-2
`
`Google’s
`Opposition to
`Sonos’s Motion to
`Realign the Parties
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`854-3
`
`854-4
`
`Proposed
`Term Sheet
`Sonos’s First
`Motion in Limine
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`Note that many of the names of the other
`parties to the agreements have become
`public, as Google observes in its chart
`(see, e.g., Dkt. No. 854 at 3 (“IIF”), 28
`(“Garnet”)). These names should be
`unredacted.
`
`Google seeks to seal more from this
`excerpt than Sonos. See entry for Dkt.
`No. 831-6.
`
`Specifically, the request to seal
`compensation information is granted
`seeing that Google’s compensation rates
`for engineers are not generally known,
`and their disclosure could cause
`competitive harm.
`
`Meanwhile, the request to seal
`information about the proposed term
`sheet negotiated between Sonos and
`Google prior to this litigation is granted
`in part and denied in part. The second
`sentence in paragraph 501 should be
`unredacted as follows to reflect what has
`been made public: “Sonos produced
`several negotiation documents with
`Google, including a . . . ‘non-binding’
`Confidential Patent License and Business
`Engagement Agreement (‘the . . . Sonos
`– Google Term Sheet’). The . . . Sonos –
`Google Term Sheet was a proposal; it
`was neither finalized nor executed.”
`(Here, the date may be redacted seeing
`that it has not been made known publicly
`and could cause competitive harm.)
`And, “term sheet” should be unredacted
`in line 2 of paragraph 502.
`
`Finally, the request to seal information
`related to the existence and terms of
`other patent licensing agreements that
`were not discussed in open court is
`granted in part and denied in part. These
`redactions should be narrowed consistent
`with the instruction above. See entry for
`Dkt. No. 854-4. In addition, the fact
`these were all “lump sum” agreements
`
`854-5
`
`Excerpt of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`should be unredacted because this was
`disclosed at trial.
`
`The parties shall meet and confer on the
`refiling of this excerpt in compliance
`with this order.
`
`Here too, Google must revisit how
`references to other patent licensing
`agreements are redacted, further
`narrowing them as set out above. See
`entry for Dkt. No. 854-4. The remaining
`requests to seal related to references to
`the proposed term sheet are granted for
`the reasons already stated. See entry for
`Dkt. Nos. 831-7.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7.
`
`
`Google seeks to seal numbers of Google
`Home App installs broken down by
`quarter between November 5, 2019, and
`November 15, 2022, for the ’966 patent.
`As Google acknowledges, the total
`number of installs between November
`2020 and Q4 2022 was discussed during
`trial (Dkt. No. 854 at 6). Google
`suggests that disclosing this data at a
`more granular level on a quarterly basis
`would cause it competitive harm, but
`Google has not sufficiently explained
`how. Accordingly, Google may only
`redact to omit the downloads that took
`place outside of the time period
`discussed during trial.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4.
`
`Google’s request to seal information
`regarding “loss leading” is granted in
`part and denied in part. Expressly
`without going into numbers,
`Malackowski testified at trial about
`Google products being loss leaders (see
`Tr. 1120:7–15). As such, his broad
`opinions to that effect should not be
`redacted (see, e.g., “I understand that
`
`854-6
`
`Google’s Response
`to Sonos’s First
`Motion in Limine
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`854-7
`
`854-8
`
`Google’s Response
`to Sonos’s Fourth
`Motion in Limine
`Excerpt of
`Malackowski
`Supplemental
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`854-9
`
`854-10
`
`Proposed
`Term Sheet
`Excerpt of
`Malackowski
`Supplemental
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`Google has generally not garnered gross
`profits on the sales of the physical
`hardware devices which enable Google’s
`infringement.”). The figures and studies
`he cites, however, which were never
`made part of the public record, may be
`redacted as confidential business
`information.
`
`Meanwhile, Google’s proposed
`redactions involving the terms of other
`licenses should be further tailored as set
`out above. See entry for Dkt. No. 854-4.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 854-10. In this
`longer excerpt, the figures that
`Malackowski used in calculating the
`reasonable royalty damages for the zone
`scene patents should be disclosed on
`page 10. As discussed, with respect to
`the ’966 patent, the total number of
`installs of the Google Home app is
`already in the public record, and breaking
`it down by quarter should not cause
`Google competitive harm. See entry for
`Dkt. No. 854-8. Likewise, with respect
`to the ’885 patent, the total number of
`infringing units is already in the public
`record, and breaking them down by
`quarter should not cause Google
`competitive harm.
`
`Meanwhile, the redactions with respect
`to the direct control (’033 patent)
`damages calculations on page 9 are
`acceptable because this information
`never became a part of the public record
`and involves Google’s otherwise
`confidential business information.
`
`As noted previously, Google’s
`compensation rates for engineers are not
`generally known, and their disclosure
`could cause Google competitive harm.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 854-5.
`
`
`854-11
`
`Excerpt of
`Malackowski
`Supplemental
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`854-12
`
`Excerpt of
`Malackowski
`Supplemental
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED.
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 14 of 18
`
`Google seeks to seal language regarding
`its net revenues and profits, as well as a
`reference to the details of the proposed
`term sheet. Neither are generally known,
`and their disclosure could cause Google
`competitive harm.
`
`Google seeks to seal subscription and
`advertising revenue data and usage
`metrics related to the Pixel and the ’033
`patent. Such information is not generally
`known and was never made public over
`the course of this litigation, and
`disclosure of such information could
`cause Google competitive harm.
`
`Google seeks to seal references to
`lifetime value analyses for unaccused
`Google products that were never made
`public over the course of this litigation,
`disclosure of which could cause Google
`competitive harm.
`
`Google seeks to seal references to the bill
`of materials for the Nest Mini and the
`Nest Audio. Such information is not
`generally known and was never made
`public over the course of this litigation,
`and disclosure of such information could
`cause Google competitive harm.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 854-10. Note that
`here Google did not even request to seal
`the broad “loss leader” language that it
`requested to seal with submission of the
`overlapping excerpt above.
`
`Google seeks to redact information
`regarding patent licenses it negotiated
`with non-parties from a table of contents.
`As set out above, these redactions should
`be streamlined to account for the limited
`potential for harm and what is already
`public knowledge. See entry for Dkt.
`No. 854-4.
`
`
`
`
`854-13
`
`Sonos’s Opposition
`to Google’s Fourth
`Motion in Limine
`
`GRANTED.
`
`854-14
`
`Excerpt of
`Malackowski
`Supplemental
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED.
`
`854-15
`
`Excerpt of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED.
`
`854-16
`
`Excerpt of Chan
`Deposition
`Transcript
`
`GRANTED.
`
`854-17
`
`Excerpt of
`Malackowski
`Supplemental
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED.
`
`854-18
`
`Excerpt of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 15 of 18
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 854-5.
`
`
`See entries for Dkt. Nos. 854-8, 854-10,
`854-12.
`
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 854-5.
`
`
`Google seeks to seal adjusted damages
`figures and has not sufficiently stated the
`harm that would result from their
`disclosure. Such figures are derived by
`experts; they are not proprietary. What’s
`more, the updated damages figures for
`the ’966 and ’885 patents that Google
`seeks to seal were already made part of
`the public record.
`
`Google seeks to seal its internal
`information regarding the average daily
`number of its speakers executing certain
`commands related to grouping and the
`average daily number of connected
`devices. As Google recognizes, although
`the total weighted percentages of devices
`in groups were discussed during trial, the
`data at issue here was not discussed at a
`granular level.
`
`Google seeks to seal information
`regarding the amount of revenue IFTTT
`received a result of sales on the Google
`Play store, the number of IFTTT
`downloads, and the number of worldwide
`financial transactions associated with the
`IFTTT app. Although the boilerplate line
`about providing competitors with
`information that Google does not have
`access to from competing platforms rings
`hollow here, this order agrees that
`Google has an interest in protecting
`confidential financial and metrics data of
`apps written by third parties and
`distributed on the Google Play store,
`
`
`
`854-19
`
`854-20
`
`854-21
`
`854-22
`
`Excerpt of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`
`Excerpt of
`Malackowski
`Supplemental
`Expert Report
`Excerpt of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`
`Exhibit 1 of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`GRANTED IN
`PART,
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`DENIED.
`
`854-23
`
`Exhibit 4 of
`Bakewell Rebuttal
`Expert Report
`
`GRANTED.
`
`854-24 Google’s Response
`to Request for
`Information
`
`GRANTED.
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 889 Filed 02/09/24 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`854-26
`
`854-25 Google’s Response
`to Sonos’s Request
`for Clarification
`Sonos-Google
`Pre-Litigation
`Licensing
`Negotiation
`Correspondence
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`854-27
`
`854-28
`
`854-29
`
`Proposed
`Term Sheet
`Sonos-Google
`Pre-Litigation
`Licensing
`Negotiation
`Correspondence
`Sonos-Google IP
`Licensing
`Discussion Slide
`Deck (Sonos)
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED
`AS
`AMENDED.
`
`16
`
`public disclosure of which could cause
`Google (and IFTTT) harm.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7.
`
`
`Google seeks to seal a letter sent between
`the parties in pre-litigation licensing
`negotiations, disclosure of which could
`cause the parties competitive harm, for
`reasons already stated, in light of the
`detailed discussion of proposed terms.
`See ent