`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 277 Filed 09/30/22 Page 1 of 2
`
`ANDREW V. TRASK
`(202) 434-5023
`atrask@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ECF
`
`September 30, 2022
`
`
`
`Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
`U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
`40 Foley Square, Room 2204
`New York, NY 10007
`
`
`Re: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, et al., Nos. 1:14-cv-2396-PGG-
`SN & 1:14-cv-9558-PGG-SN (S.D.N.Y.)
`
`
`Dear Judge Gardephe:
`
`I write on behalf of Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC (collectively, “Google”)
`
`to request leave to file under seal Google’s Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief Regarding
`Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Google is not seeking to seal the brief in its entirety;
`rather, it has applied targeted redactions to particular passages containing commercially sensitive
`information that it submits ought to remain confidential notwithstanding the “presumption of
`access” applicable to the filing. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20
`(2d Cir. 2006); see id. at 120 (explaining that a court should “balance competing considerations”
`when determining whether sealing is warranted, including “the privacy interests of those
`resisting disclosure”). In accordance with Rule II.B of the Court’s Individual Rules, Google will
`publicly file the brief with the proposed redactions and file under seal a copy of the unredacted
`document with the redactions highlighted.
`
`The redacted portions of the supplemental brief describe particular details relating to
`
`techniques for structuring or searching data that Google keeps confidential in order to preserve
`its competitive standing. In particular, the redacted passages contain descriptions by fact or
`expert witnesses of proprietary algorithms or parameters used by Google in its Content ID
`system that could not be ascertained without access to Google’s confidential source code or other
`documentation that Google regards as commercially sensitive. This kind of confidential
`“technical information” has been sealed under analogous circumstances because public
`disclosure “could allow competitors an unfair advantage, and would thus be highly prejudicial.”
`Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 1:18-cv-4500-GHW, 2021 WL 1222122, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
`Mar. 31, 2021) (granting a request in a patent infringement litigation to seal certain “confidential
`and proprietary data collection procedures, image processing procedures, specific hardware used
`to perform these procedures, and confidential details about … specific algorithms and the names
`of specific variables and functions in [the defendant’s] source code”).
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 277 Filed 09/30/22 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`September 30, 2022
`Page 2
`
`Google’s Content ID system is the product of extensive research and development efforts
`
`by teams of Google computer scientists and software engineers, and Google respectfully submits
`that it is appropriate to redact descriptions of particular design choices or technical
`implementations relating to the system. Releasing these kinds of confidential details could allow
`competitors, copyright infringers, or others to benefit unfairly from Google’s substantial
`investments in its proprietary methods for determining instances of reuse of video, audio, and
`melody content. The proposed redactions are therefore necessary to avoid competitive harm.
`See, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Commncn’s, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (observing that “the right
`to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute” and noting approvingly that courts have
`sealed “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”); Louis Vuitton
`Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merchandise Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (approving
`redactions to “judicial documents” that were “generally limited to specific business information
`and strategies, which, if revealed, may provide valuable insights into a company’s current
`business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit”).
`
`Google’s proposed redactions are directed to details regarding Google’s Content ID
`
`system that are confidential and commercially sensitive, and the parties’ legal theories and
`arguments will remain publicly accessible. This targeted approach is consistent with the balance
`that courts must strike in determining which materials merit sealing, including with respect to
`summary judgment briefing in patent infringement cases. See, e.g., Kewazinga, 2021 WL
`1222122, at *7 (describing “the countervailing privacy concerns [that] outweigh the public’s
`need for public access” to a party’s “confidential technical information” submitted with a
`summary judgment motion); BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research
`Org., No. 2:17-cv-503-HCM, 2020 WL 973751, at *15–16 (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 2020) (approving
`redactions to “confidential commercial information” in materials submitted with motions for
`summary judgment because, among other things, “the parties have filed detailed public versions,
`which do not seek to completely seal their briefing, outlining in detail the legal and factual issues
`raised by the motions”).
`
` For the foregoing reasons, Google respectfully requests leave to file a redacted version
`
`of its Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief Regarding Google’s Motion for Summary
`Judgment.
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Andrew V. Trask
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew V. Trask
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
`
`
`