Case 1:13-cv-00920-VAC Document 339 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 14450
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS
`USA, INC. and LG ELECTRONICS
`MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.,
`Defendants.
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED and BLACKBERRY
`CORPORATION,
`Defendants.
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`f/k/a MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
`Defendant.
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA)
`INC. f/k/a SONY ERICSSON MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`SONY CORPORATION and
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-1595-LPS
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-1597-LPS
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-1601-LPS
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-1602-LPS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-VAC Document 339 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 14451
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Defendant.
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`OATH HOLDINGS INC., and OATH INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-920-LPS
`Original Version: April 7, 2022
`Public Version: April 19, 2022
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED
`REDACTIONS
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order, dated March 31, 2022 (D.I. 351 in 12-1595), the parties
`
`respectfully submit the following memorandum of law in support of their limited proposed
`
`redactions to the sealed Memorandum Opinion regarding pending motions (D.I. 350 in 12-
`
`1595). A copy of the proposed redactions with highlights is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy
`
`of the proposed redactions with the redactions applied is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“Courts have ‘inherent equitable power’ to grant orders of confidentiality upon a showing
`
`of good cause.” EEOC v. Kronos Inc., 620 F.3d 287, 302 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Pansy v. Borough
`
`of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 785–86 (3d Cir. 1994)). Good cause is established by a showing that
`
`“disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” Id. (quoting
`
`Pansy, 23 F.3d at 786). “Assessing whether good cause exists . . . generally involves a balancing
`
`process, in which courts weigh the harm of disclosing information against the importance of
`
`disclosure to the public.” Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. LSI Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d 503, 508 (D. Del. 2012)
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-VAC Document 339 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 14452
`
`(citing Pansy, 23 F.3d at 787). The Court may consider several factors, which are “neither
`
`mandatory nor exhaustive,” including “(1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests;
`
`(2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose; (3) whether disclosure will
`
`cause embarrassment to a party; (4) whether the information to be disclosed is important to public
`
`health and safety; (5) whether sharing the information among litigants will promote fairness and
`
`efficiency; (6) whether the party benefitting from the order is a public entity or official; and (7)
`
`whether the case involves issues important to the public.” Id. at 508 n.2 (citing Glenmede Trust
`
`Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995)).
`
`In applying those factors, courts “typically permit redacting information in licensing
`
`agreements or other documents that relates to trade secrets or confidential technologies.” Mosaid,
`
`878 F. Supp. 2d at 511; Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 166 (3d
`
`Cir. 1993) (“We too have explained that the presence of trade secrets in court records weighs
`
`against the right of access, although we have framed the inquiry as whether the need for secrecy
`
`outweighs the presumption of access that normally attaches to such documents.”). Sealing is
`
`particularly appropriate to protect confidential research and development work. See, e.g., Joint
`
`Stock Soc. v. UDV N. Am., Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 390, 396 (D. Del. 2000) (sealing was proper where
`
`the “overwhelming majority of these documents contained ‘legitimate trade secrets or other
`
`proprietary information,” such as “vodka formulas, consumer research studies, strategic plans,
`
`potential advertising and marketing campaigns or financial information”); accord In re
`
`Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, 667 (D. N.J. 2004) (sealing was proper to protect
`
`information relating to “the parties’ products, research and development, processes, secret
`
`chemical formulas, the parties’ suppliers”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-VAC Document 339 Filed 04/19/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 14453
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`The Court should maintain the confidential treatment of the content the parties have
`
`proposed redacting from the Court’s opinion because it consists of information which is properly
`
`protected under the Agreed Protective Order this Court entered on September 10, 2013. See Arendi
`
`S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 13-919-LPS, D.I. 16-1. The Protective Order provides, in
`
`pertinent part, that “Confidential Information” means “all documents, testimony, transcripts,
`
`information or other material formally or informally produced or disclosed in connection with this
`
`action . . . that the Producing Party considers to comprise confidential, proprietary, or
`
`commercially sensitive information.” Id. at ¶6(C)(1). Moreover, the Protective Order included
`
`language where the parties “acknowledge[d] that this Order does not confer blanket protections on
`
`all disclosures,” and that “[d]esignations under this Order shall be made with care and shall not be
`
`made absent a good faith belief that the designated material satisfie[d] the criteria [set forth
`
`therein].” Id. at ¶1(C).
`
`The information the parties seek to redact consists of information regarding the identities
`
`and testimony of third-party deponents whose deposition transcripts have been designated
`
`confidential by Apple Inc. (“Apple”), a former defendant in a related case. The parties understand
`
`that public disclosure of this information could lead to injury via disclosure of sensitive Apple
`
`information, including information about the operation of its Apple Data Detector, LiveDoc, and
`
`Newton systems and its developers of those systems. See Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion
`
`Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 166 (3d Cir. 1993) (“Documents containing . . . confidential business
`
`information may be protected from disclosure.”); Gabapentin, 312 F. Supp. 2d at 658 (sealing
`
`summary judgment papers that contained information about “the parties’ products, research and
`
`development, processes, secret chemical formulas, [and] the parties’ suppliers”). In contrast to the
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-VAC Document 339 Filed 04/19/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 14454
`
`private interest in redacting such information, there is no strong public interest weighing in favor
`
`of disclosure, such as the subject information being “important to public health and safety.”
`
`Mosaid, 878 F. Supp. 2d at 508 n.2. Any countervailing public interest is outweighed by the
`
`interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the proposed redacted information, which provides
`
`good cause for the proposed redactions. See Pansy, 23 F.3d at 788 (“[I]f a case involves private
`
`litigants, and concerns matters of little legitimate public interest, that should be a factor weighing
`
`in favor of granting or maintaining an order of confidentiality.”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, the parties respectfully submit that good cause exists for the Court
`
`to permit the narrow and limited redactions requested by the parties, and that any harm outweighs
`
`the public’s interest in this information. The parties further respectfully request that the redactions
`
`in the form attached as Exhibit B be docketed by the Court.
`
`Dated: April 7, 2022
`
`
`
`
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
`
`
`/s/ Eve H. Ormerod
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Eve H. Ormerod (No. 5369)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`eormerod@skjlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`/s/ Rodger D. Smith, II
`Rodger D. Smith, II (No. 3778)
`1201 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 658-9200
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorney for Defendants
`Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.,
`Sony Corporation and
`Sony Corporation of America
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-VAC Document 339 Filed 04/19/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 14455
`
`
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`/s/ Jeremy D. Anderson
`Jeremy D. Anderson (No. 4145)
`Casey M. Kraning (No. 6298)
`222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-5070
`janderson@fr.com
`kraning@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics,
`Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and
`LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (No. 1014)
`Brian P. Egan (No. 6227)
`Anthony Raucci (No. 5948)
`1201 North Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`began@morrisnichols.com
`araucci@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Oath Holdings Inc. and Oath Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`/s/ David E. Moore
`
`David E. Moore (No. 3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (No. 5370)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Motorola Mobility LLC f/k/a Motorola
`Mobility, Inc. and Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`
`/s/ Cortlan S. Hitch
`Kenneth L. Dorsney (No. 3726)
`Cortlan S. Hitch (No. 6720)
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 888-6800
`kdorsney@morrisjames.com
`chitch@morrisjames.com
`Attorneys for Defendants BlackBerry Limited
`and BlackBerry Corporation
`
`6
`
`
`
`