Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ARIGNA TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
` Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-1045-ADA
`
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ORDER REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDER
`The parties sent the Court an email submission disputing the entry of a protective order.
`
`The Court hereby resolves the dispute.
`
`Summary of the Issue
`
`Arigna:
`
`Whether the Court should enter the Court’s default protective order, as modified to include
`
`provisions the parties mutually accepted and a provision allowing secure electronic transfer of
`
`source code material.
`
`Google:
`
`Whether the Court should deny Arigna’s protective order, which includes a provision to
`
`permit secure electronic transfer of source code material which the parties neither mutually
`
`accepted nor discussed during meet and confer.
`
`Requested Relief
`
`Arigna requests the Court to enter the attached protective order.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`Google requests the Court to deny Arigna’s request and enter Google’s requested
`
`Protective Order, which omits the source code provision and permits the parties to meet and confer
`
`in the event source code is to be reviewed or produced.
`
`Arigna’s Position
`
`Arigna and Google have been negotiating a protective order for over six weeks. The
`
`parties’ negotiations have reached an impasse, and Arigna asks the Court to enter its default
`
`protective order, as modified to include several additional provisions on which Google and agree
`
`and one provision—regarding electronic transfer of source code—that Arigna seeks and Google
`
`has not accepted.
`
`The parties have negotiated and mutually accepted several additions to the Court’s default
`
`protective order. For example, Arigna accepted a provision Google proposed to limit the number
`
`of in-house counsel who may view protected material without prior written consent as well as
`
`several of Google’s proposed source code provisions. Google has similarly accepted provisions
`
`Arigna proposed allowing disclosures to mock jurors who have agreed not to disclose the material.
`
`While Arigna and Google have reached these agreements, the parties’ latest exchanges of
`
`drafts show that no more can be negotiated, as parties continue to propose and reject the same
`
`provisions.
`
`Arigna believes the Court’s default protective order for patent cases is well-suited to this
`
`case, as it was carefully designed to be. Rather than consume the Court’s time by going provision
`
`by provision through the disputed protective order provisions, Arigna recognizes that the Court’s
`
`default protective order already represents that compromise. Arigna is satisfied with the Court’s
`
`default protective order where the parties have not otherwise agreed.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`Arigna asks this Court for only one exception: that paragraph 11(l) be changed to allow
`
`Source Code Materials to be transferred by secure electronic transfer, rather than only by hard
`
`copy or physical media. This addition accomplishes the same goal as the Court’s default, i.e., the
`
`highest protection of a party’s confidential source code. But it also accounts for the reality that
`
`secure electronic transfer is necessary to facilitate the process of drafting and reviewing expert
`
`reports. Secure electronic transfer of source code materials would allow outside counsel and
`
`experts to share draft reports that reference or include source code materials electronically, greatly
`
`reducing the complexity of producing and reviewing draft expert reports.
`
`Arigna respectfully asks the Court to enter the attached default protective order that has
`
`been modified to include the parties’ additional agreed provisions and to allow source code transfer
`
`by secure electronic means.
`
`Google’s Position
`
`While the parties have made some progress toward agreement through negotiations, Arigna
`
`overstates that progress as mutual acceptance of several provisions. Arigna mischaracterizes that
`
`its proposed protective order “includes provisions the parties mutually accepted.”
`
`Google requests simplifying the dispute by removing provisions about source code
`
`entirely. Because the accused features in this case lie in components supplied by third parties,
`
`Google is not required to make its own confidential source code for inspection in this case. Arigna,
`
`however, insists on keeping source code provisions in the protective order, and goes further by
`
`permitting electronic transfer of source code material, a provision that is not found in this Court’s
`
`default protective order. Arigna’s source code requests are premature, as Google has not made
`
`available for inspection any source code in this case and Google does not expect to do so for its
`
`own confidential source code in this case. Instead, relevant source code in this matter will come
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`from third party suppliers, who have not had any involvement in the negotiation of the protective
`
`order and its source code provisions.
`
`Alternatively, if the Court is inclined to enter a protective order addressing source code,
`
`then Arigna’s request for electronic transfer of source code should be denied. Arigna provides no
`
`support for permitting electronic transfer of source code. As this Court is well-aware, source code
`
`is among a company’s most valuable and protected assets. The purpose of the protective order is
`
`to protect very sensitive information like source code and prevent disclosure, inadvertent or
`
`otherwise. Permitting electronic transfer of source code greatly increases the risk of a protective
`
`order violation. It is also prejudicial and unfair to third party suppliers who may produce or make
`
`available for inspection source code later in this action subject to the protective order, as those
`
`third parties have had no opportunity to object to Arigna’s electronic transfer provision.
`
`Arigna’s rationale for its request focuses on facilitating drafting expert reports, but
`
`electronic transfer is unnecessary for that because they instead can cite to Bates pages and line
`
`numbers of printed source code pages. Further, Arigna’s request is premature, as expert discovery
`
`is still months away from now.
`
`If Google or third party suppliers are later in a position to make source code available for
`
`inspection, then the parties can revisit then whether the protective order should address source
`
`code. Google thus requests the Court enter Google’s version of the protective order.
`
`Resolution
`
`The Court generally defaults to its model protective order and deviates as little as possible
`
`from its model protective order except by agreement of the parties.
`
`The Court will enter Arigna’s version of the protective order, which contains restrictions
`
`on using source code like the model protective order. The Court finds no reason to permit secure
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`electronic transfer and removes this provision. The parties’ agreed terms to transfer by hard copy
`
`and physical media is convenient enough. Source code is among a company’s most valuable and
`
`protected assets. Arigna articulates no justification for risking exposure of source code via
`
`electronic transfer. The Court likewise sees no reason to delay entering a protective order with
`
`source code provisions if third parties are likely to need source code protection.
`
`The Court hereby enters the appended Protective Order.
`
`
`
`SIGNED this 12th day of April, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ARIGNA TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
` Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-1045-ADA
`
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`WHEREAS, Plaintiff Arigna Technology Limited and Defendant Google LLC, hereafter referred
`
`to as “the Parties,” believe that certain information that is or will be encompassed by discovery
`
`demands by the Parties involves the production or disclosure of trade secrets, confidential business
`
`information, or other proprietary information;
`
`WHEREAS, the Parties seek a protective order limiting disclosure thereof in accordance with
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c):
`
`THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated among the Parties and ORDERED that:
`
`1.
`
`Each Party may designate as confidential for protection under this Order, in whole or in
`
`part, any document, information, or material that constitutes or includes, in whole or in
`
`part, confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets of the Party or a Third Party
`
`to whom the Party reasonably believes it owes an obligation of confidentiality with respect
`
`to such document, information, or material (“Protected Material”). Protected Material shall
`
`be designated by the Party producing it by affixing a legend or stamp on such document,
`
`information, or material as follows: “CONFIDENTIAL.” The word “CONFIDENTIAL”
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`shall be placed clearly on each page of the Protected Material (except deposition and
`
`hearing transcripts and natively produced documents) for which such protection is sought.
`
`For deposition and hearing transcripts, the word “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be placed on
`
`the cover page of the transcript (if not already present on the cover page of the transcript
`
`when received from the court reporter) by each attorney receiving a copy of the transcript
`
`after that attorney receives notice of the designation of some or all of that transcript as
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL.”
`
` For natively produced Protected Material,
`
`the word
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL” shall be placed in the filename of each such natively produced
`
`document.
`
`2.
`
`Any document produced before issuance of this Order, including pursuant to the Court’s
`
`Order Governing Proceedings - Patent Case, with the designation “Confidential” or the like
`
`shall receive the same treatment as if designated “CONFIDENTIAL” under this order and
`
`any such documents produced with the designation “Confidential - Outside Attorneys’
`
`Eyes Only” shall receive the same treatment as if designated “CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under this Order, unless and until such
`
`document is re-designated to have a different classification under this Order.
`
`3.
`
`With respect to documents, information, or material designated “CONFIDENTIAL,”
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” “CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” or “CONFIDENTIAL
`
`- SOURCE CODE”
`
`(“DESIGNATED MATERIAL”),1 subject to the provisions herein and unless otherwise
`
`
`1 The term DESIGNATED MATERIAL is used throughout this Protective Order to refer to the
`class of materials designated as “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`ONLY,” “CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” or “CONFIDENTIAL
`- SOURCE CODE,” individually and collectively.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`stated, this Order governs, without limitation: (a) all documents, electronically stored
`
`information, and/or things as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) all
`
`pretrial, hearing or deposition testimony, or documents marked as exhibits or for
`
`identification in depositions and hearings; (c) pretrial pleadings, exhibits to pleadings and
`
`other court filings; (d) affidavits; and (e) stipulations. All copies, reproductions, extracts,
`
`digests, and complete or partial summaries prepared from any DESIGNATED
`
`MATERIALS shall also be considered DESIGNATED MATERIAL and treated as such
`
`under this Order.
`
`4.
`
`A designation of Protected Material (i.e., “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” “CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`
`ONLY,” or “CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE”) may be made at any time. Inadvertent
`
`or unintentional production of documents, information, or material that has not been
`
`designated as DESIGNATED MATERIAL shall not be deemed a waiver in whole or in
`
`part of a claim for confidential treatment. Any party that inadvertently or unintentionally
`
`produces Protected Material without designating it as DESIGNATED MATERIAL may
`
`request destruction of that Protected Material by notifying the recipient(s), as soon as
`
`reasonably possible after the producing Party becomes aware of the inadvertent or
`
`unintentional disclosure, and providing replacement Protected Material that is properly
`
`designated. The recipient(s) shall then destroy all copies of the inadvertently or
`
`unintentionally produced Protected Materials and any documents, information, or material
`
`derived from or based thereon.
`
`5.
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL” documents, information, and material may be disclosed only to the
`
`following persons, except upon receipt of the prior written consent of the designating party,
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`upon order of the Court, or as set forth in paragraph 15 herein:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(a)
`
`outside counsel of record in this Action2 for the Parties;
`
`employees of such counsel assigned to and reasonably necessary to assist such
`counsel in the litigation of this Action;
`
`up to two in-house counsel for the Parties who either have responsibility for making
`decisions dealing directly with the litigation of this Action, or who are assisting
`outside counsel in the litigation of this Action;
`
`Up to and including three (3) designated representatives of each of the Parties to the
`extent reasonably necessary for the litigation of this Action, except that any Party
`may in good faith request the other Party’s consent to designate one or more
`additional representatives, the other Party shall not unreasonably withhold such
`consent, and the requesting Party may seek leave of Court to designate such
`additional representative(s) if the requesting Party believes the other Party has
`unreasonably withheld such consent.
`
`Outside consultants or experts retained for the purpose of this litigation, provided
`that: (1) such consultants or experts are not presently employed by the Parties or
`of an affiliate of a Party hereto for purposes other than this Action3; (2) before
`access is given, the consultant or expert has completed the Undertaking attached as
`Appendix A hereto and the same is served upon the producing Party with a current
`curriculum vitae of the consultant or expert, including a list of other cases in which
`the individual has provided a report or testified (at trial or deposition) and a list of
`companies that the individual has been employed by or provided consulting
`services pertaining to the field of the invention of the patent(s)-in-suit or the
`products accused of infringement within the last four years and a brief description
`of the subject matter of the consultancy or employment, at least ten (10) days
`before access to the Protected Material is to be given to that consultant or expert
`to object to and notify the receiving Party in writing that it objects to disclosure of
`Protected Material to the consultant or expert. The Parties agree to promptly confer
`and use good faith to resolve any such objection. If the Parties are unable to resolve
`any objection, the objecting Party may file a motion with the Court within fifteen
`(15) days of receipt of the notice, or within such other time as the Parties may agree,
`seeking a protective order with respect to the proposed disclosure. The objecting
`Party shall have the burden of proving the need for a protective order. No disclosure
`shall occur until all such objections are resolved by agreement or Court order.
`
`
`
`(e)
`
`independent litigation support services, including persons working for or as court
`reporters, graphics or design services, jury or trial consulting services, and
`
`2 This “Action” means Case No. 6:21-cv-1045-ADA.
`3 For avoidance of doubt, an independent expert or consultant retained (as opposed to employed)
`by a Party on another litigation would not be precluded under this section.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`photocopy, document imaging, and database services retained by counsel and
`reasonably necessary to assist counsel with the litigation of this Action;
`mock jurors who have signed an undertaking or agreement agreeing not to publicly
`disclose Protected Material and to keep any information concerning Protected
`Material confidential;
`
`any mediator who is assigned to hear this matter, and his or her staff, subject to
`their agreement to maintain confidentiality to the same degree as required by this
`Protective Order; and
`
`(h)
`
`the Court and its personnel.
`
`A Party shall designate documents, information, or material as “CONFIDENTIAL” only
`
`upon a good faith belief that the documents, information, or material contains confidential
`
`or proprietary information or trade secrets of the Party or a Third Party to whom the Party
`
`reasonably believes it owes an obligation of confidentiality with respect to such documents,
`
`information, or material.
`
`7.
`
`Documents, information, or material produced in this Action, including but not limited to
`
`Protected Material designated as DESIGNATED MATERIAL, (i) shall be used only for
`
`prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this Action, (ii) shall not be used for any
`
`other purpose. Any person or entity who obtains access to DESIGNATED MATERIAL or
`
`the contents thereof pursuant to this Order shall not make any copies, duplicates, extracts,
`
`summaries, or descriptions of such DESIGNATED MATERIAL or any portion thereof
`
`except as may be reasonably necessary in the litigation of this Action. Any such copies,
`
`duplicates, extracts, summaries, or descriptions shall be classified DESIGNATED
`
`MATERIALS and subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Order.
`
`8.
`
`To the extent a producing Party believes that certain Protected Material qualifying to be
`
`designated CONFIDENTIAL is so sensitive that its dissemination deserves even further
`
`limitation, the producing Party may designate such Protected Material “CONFIDENTIAL
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`
`ONLY,” or to the extent such Protected Material includes computer source code and/or
`
`live data (that is, data as it exists residing in a database or databases) (“Source Code
`
`Material”),
`
`the producing Party may designate such Protected Material as
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE.”
`
`9.
`
`For Protected Material designated CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,
`
`access to, and disclosure of, such Protected Material shall be limited to individuals listed
`
`in paragraphs 5(a–c) and (e–j); provided, however, that access by in-house counsel
`
`pursuant to paragraph 5(c) be limited to in-house counsel who exercise no competitive
`
`decision-making authority on behalf of the client and nothing in this paragraph 9 precludes
`
`outside counsel for a Party from informing their client(s) of high-level damages
`
`information, such as discussing estimated damages to aid in settlement discussions and
`
`advising on damages models.
`
`10.
`
`For Protected Material designated CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`
`ONLY, access to, and disclosure of, such Protected Material shall be limited to individuals
`
`listed in paragraphs 5(a–b) and (e–j); provided, however, that the designating Party shall
`
`accommodate reasonable requests to provide summary information to in-house counsel
`
`designated pursuant to paragraph 5(c) who exercise no competitive decision-making
`
`authority on behalf of the client and reasonably require access to such information.
`
`11.
`
`For Protected Material designated CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE, the following
`
`additional restrictions apply:
`
`(a)
`
`Access to a Party’s Source Code Material shall be provided only on “stand-alone”
`computer(s) (that is, the computer may not be linked to any network, including a
`local area network (“LAN”), an intranet or the Internet).
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`(b)
`
`The stand-alone computer(s) may be connected to (i) a printer, or (ii) a device
`capable of temporarily storing electronic copies solely for the limited purposes
`permitted pursuant to paragraphs 11(h and k) below. Additionally, except as
`provided in paragraph 11(k) below, the stand-alone computer(s) may only be
`located within the continental United States at the offices of the producing Party’s
`outside counsel or its vendors. Use or possession of any input/output device (e.g.,
`USB memory stick, mobile phone or tablet, camera or any camera-enabled device,
`CD, floppy disk, portable hard drive, laptop, or any device that can access the
`Internet or any other network or external system, etc.) is prohibited while accessing
`the computer containing the source code. All persons entering the locked room
`containing the stand-alone computer(s) must agree to affirm that they are not
`carrying any prohibited items before they will be given access to the stand-alone
`computer(s). The producing Party may periodically “check in” on the activities of
`the receiving Party’s representatives during any stand-alone computer review and
`may visually monitor the activities of the receiving Party’s representatives from
`outside the room in which the stand-alone computer(s) is located, but only to
`ensure that no unauthorized electronic records of the Source Code Material and no
`information concerning the Source Code Material are being created or transmitted
`in any way. The producing Party may not record (visually, audibly or by other
`means) the activities of the receiving Party’s representatives.
`
`The receiving Party shall make reasonable efforts to restrict its requests for such
`access to the stand-alone computer(s) to normal business hours, which for purposes
`of this paragraph shall be 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. However, upon reasonable
`notice from the receiving Party, the producing Party shall make reasonable efforts
`to accommodate the receiving Party’s request for access to the stand-alone
`computer(s) outside of normal business hours. The Parties agree to cooperate in
`good faith such that maintaining the producing Party’s Source Code Material at the
`offices of its outside counsel or its vendors shall not unreasonably hinder the
`receiving Party’s ability to efficiently and effectively conduct the prosecution or
`defense of this Action.
`
`The producing Party shall provide the receiving Party with information explaining
`how to start, log on to, and operate the stand-alone computer(s) in order to access
`the produced Source Code Material on the stand-alone computer(s).
`
`The producing Party will produce Source Code Material in computer searchable
`format on the stand-alone computer(s) as described above.
`
`Access to Source Code Material shall be limited to outside counsel and up to three
`(3) outside consultants or experts4 (i.e., not existing employees or affiliates of a
`
`4 For the purposes of this paragraph, an outside consultant or expert is defined to include the outside
`consultant’s or expert’s direct reports and other support personnel, such that the disclosure to a
`consultant or expert who employs others within his or her firm to help in his or her analysis shall
`
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`Party or an affiliate of a Party or competitor identified by the Producing Party with
`reasonable specificity) retained for the purpose of this litigation and approved to
`access such Protected Materials pursuant to paragraph 5(e) above. A receiving
`Party may include excerpts of Source Code Material in an exhibit to a pleading,
`expert report, or deposition transcript (collectively, “Source Code Exhibits”),
`provided that the Source Code Exhibits are appropriately marked under this Order,
`restricted to those who are entitled to have access to them as specified herein, and,
`if filed with the Court, filed under seal in accordance with the Court’s rules,
`procedures, and orders.
`
`To the extent portions of Source Code Material are quoted in a Source Code
`Exhibit, either (1) the entire Source Code Exhibit will be stamped and treated as
`CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE or (2) those pages containing quoted Source
`Code Material will be separately stamped and treated as CONFIDENTIAL -
`SOURCE CODE.
`
`Except as set forth in paragraph 11(k) below, no electronic copies of Source Code
`Material shall be made without prior written consent of the producing Party, except
`as necessary to create documents that, pursuant to the Court’s rules, procedures,
`and order, must be filed or served electronically.
`
`The receiving Party shall be permitted to make a reasonable number of printouts and
`photocopies of Source Code Material, which shall presumptively be a total of ten
`(10), all of which shall be designated and clearly labeled “CONFIDENTIAL -
`SOURCE CODE,” and the receiving Party shall maintain a log of all such files that
`are printed or photocopied.
`
`Should such printouts or photocopies be permissibly transferred back to electronic
`media, such media shall be labeled “CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE” and
`shall continue to be treated as such.
`
`If the receiving Party’s outside counsel, consultants, or experts obtain printouts or
`photocopies of Source Code Material, the receiving Party shall ensure that such
`outside counsel, consultants, or experts keep the printouts or photocopies in a
`secured locked area in the offices of such outside counsel, consultants, or expert.
`The receiving Party may also temporarily keep the printouts or photocopies at: (i) the
`Court for any proceedings(s) relating to the Source Code Material, for the dates
`associated with the proceeding(s); (ii) the sites where any deposition(s) relating to
`the Source Code Material are taken, for the dates associated with the deposition(s);
`and (iii) any intermediate location reasonably necessary to transport the printouts or
`photocopies (e.g., a hotel prior to a Court proceeding or deposition), provided that
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`
`
`(i)
`
`
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`
`count as a disclosure to a single consultant or expert, provided that such personnel helping in the
`analysis of Source Code Material shall be disclosed pursuant to Paragraph 5(f).
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`(m)
`
`(n)
`
`the printouts or photocopies are kept in a secure manner that ensures access is
`limited to the persons authorized under this Order.
`
`(l) A producing Party’s Source Code Material may only be transported by the
`receiving Party at the direction of a person authorized under paragraph 11(f) above
`to another person authorized under paragraph 11(f) above on paper or removable
`electronic media (e.g., a DVD, CD-ROM, or flash memory “stick”) via hand carry,
`Federal Express, or other similarly reliable courier. Source Code Material may not
`be transported or transmitted electronically over a network of any kind, including
`a LAN, an intranet, or the Internet.
`
`The receiving Party’s outside counsel and/or expert shall be entitled to take notes
`relating to the source code but may not copy any portion of the source code into
`the notes. No copies of all or any portion of the source code may leave the room
`in which the source code is inspected except as otherwise provided herein. Further,
`no other written or electronic record of the source code is permitted except as
`otherwise provided herein. No notes shall be made or stored on the inspection
`computer, or left behind at the site where the inspection computer is made
`available, and any such notes shall be deleted or destroyed by the producing Party,
`without reviewing the substance of the notes, upon discovery. Notwithstanding the
`foregoing, any such notes shall be stamped and treated as “CONFIDENTIAL -
`SOURCE CODE.”
`
`A list of names of persons who will review Source Code Material on the stand-
`alone computer(s) will be provided to the producing Party in conjunction with any
`written (including email) notice requesting inspection. Prior to the first inspection
`of any Source Code Material on the stand-alone computer(s), the receiving Party
`shall provide five (5) business days’ notice to schedule the initial inspection with
`the producing Party. The receiving Party shall provide three (3) business days’
`notice in advance of scheduling any additional inspections. Such notice shall
`include the names and titles for every individual from the receiving Party who will
`attend the inspection. The producing Party may maintain a daily log of the names
`of persons who enter the locked room to view the source code and when they enter
`and depart.
`
`The receiving Party’s outside counsel shall maintain a log of all copies of the
`Source Code Printouts (received from a producing Party) that are delivered by the
`receiving Party to any person. The log shall include the names of the recipients
`and reviewers of copies and locations where the copies are stored. Upon request
`by the producing Party, the receiving Party shall provide reasonable assurances
`and/or descriptions of the security measures employed by the receiving Party
`and/or person that receives a copy of any portion of the source code.
`
`All copies of any portion of the Source Code Printouts shall be securely destroyed
`if they are no longer in use. Copies of Source Code Printouts that are marked as
`deposition exhibits shall not be provided to the Court Reporter or attached to
`
`(o)
`
`(p)
`
`

`

`
`12.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`deposition transcripts; rather, the deposition record will identify the exhibit by its
`production numbers.
`
`Any attorney representing a Party, whether in-house or outside counsel, and any person
`
`associated with a Party and permitted to receive the other Party’s Protected Material that
`
`are technical in nature (e.g., non-damages) and is designated CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY, CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`
`ONLY, and/or CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE (collectively “HIGHLY SENSITIVE
`
`MATERIAL”), who obtains, receives, has access to, or otherwise learns, in whole or in
`
`part, said Party’s HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL under this Order shall not prepare,
`
`prosecute, supervise, or assist in the preparation or prosecution of any patent application
`
`pertaining to the Field of the Invention of the patents-in-suit during the pendency of this
`
`Action and for one year after its conclusion, including any appeals. “Field of Invention”
`
`refers to (a) radio frequency (RF) power amplifiers and power detection, and phase
`
`correction techniques and circuits, (b) any products, services, or systems accused of
`
`infringement in this Action, or (c) the patents asserted in this Action and any patent or
`
`application claiming priority to or otherwise related to the patents asserted in this Action.
`
`To ensure compliance with the purpose of this provision, each Party shall create an “Ethical
`
`Wall” between those persons with access to HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL and any
`
`individuals who prepare, prosecute, supervise or assist in the preparation or prosecution of
`
`any patent application pertaining to the Field of Invention of the patents in suit. Nothing in
`
`this Order shall prevent a person with access to HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL from
`
`participating in a PTO proceeding, e.g., IPR or PGR, except for that person shall not
`
`participate—directly or indirectly—in the amendment of any claim(s).
`
`13.
`
`Nothing in this Order shall require production of documents, information, or other material
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01045-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/12/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`that a Party contends is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work
`
`product doctrine, or other privilege, doctrine, or immunity. If documents, information, or
`
`other material subject to a c