Case 1:13-cv-00920-VAC Document 340 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 14456
`
`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 340 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 14457
`
`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. 353 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 regarding
`
`noninfringement (D.I. 352 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
`
`Although “[t]he public has a common law right of access to judicial proceedings and
`
`records,” this right “is not absolute[.]” MOSAID Techs. Inc. v. LSI Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d 503,
`
`507 (D. Del. 2012). “Every court has inherent supervisory power, and the Third Circuit has held
`
`that courts may exercise that power to deny access to judicial records, for example, ‘where they
`
`are sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’” Id.
`
`(quoting Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988)). The party seeking to seal a
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-VAC Document 340 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 14458
`
`portion of a judicial record bears the burden of showing that (1) the material is the kind of
`
`information that courts will protect, and (2) good cause exists to justify the redaction. To establish
`
`“good cause,” the party seeking redaction must show that the “disclosure will work a clearly
`
`defined and serious injury to [that party].” In re Cendent Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001).
`
`The court’s assessment of 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., 878 F. Supp. 2d at 508 (citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d
`
`772, 787 (3d Cir. 1994)).
`
`Courts routinely recognize that confidential and sensitive business information is the type
`
`of information that should be protected from public disclosure. See Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied
`
`Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 166 (3d Cir. 1993) (“Documents containing trade secrets or
`
`other confidential business information may be protected from disclosure.”); see also Publicker
`
`Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984) (recognizing that “protection of a party’s
`
`interest in confidential commercial information” is an exception to the right of public access); Joint
`
`Stock Soc’y v. UDV N. Am. Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 390, 396 (D. Del. 2000) (recognizing that
`
`consumer research studies, strategic plans, potential advertising or marketing campaigns and
`
`financial information are the type of sensitive business information entitled to protection).
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should maintain the confidential treatment of the content the parties have
`
`proposed redacting from the Court’s opinions 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,
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-VAC Document 340 Filed 04/19/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 14459
`
`information or other material formally or informally produced or disclosed in connection with this
`
`action . . . that the Producing Part 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 portion of the March 31, 2022 Memorandum Opinion proposed for redaction should
`
`be redacted as: (1) the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and (2) good
`
`cause exists to justify the redaction. First, BlackBerry’s proposed redaction, which is limited to
`
`half of a sentence on page 22, conceals sensitive BlackBerry product testing information. This
`
`information is exactly the kind that courts routinely protect. See Mosaid Techs., 878 F. Supp. 2d
`
`at 511 (“Courts also typically permit redacting information in licensing agreements or other
`
`documents that relates to trade secrets or confidential technologies.”); In re Gabapentin Patent
`
`Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, 658 (D.N.J. 2004) (sealing summary judgment papers that contained
`
`information about “the parties’ products, research and development, processes, secret chemical
`
`formulas, [and] the parties’ suppliers”). Google’s proposed targeted redactions on pages 9 and 16–
`
`18 contain or refer to sensitive information about the specific and confidential operation of non-
`
`public aspects of Google’s Accused Apps and Android OS, including underlying source code.
`
`Courts commonly protect these kinds of information from disclosure. See id.
`
`Second, good cause exists here as the redacted information is confidential and
`
`competitively sensitive, and disclosure of the functionality tested would give BlackBerry and
`
`Google competitors an unfair advantage in competing with BlackBerry and Google in the market
`
`and would “work a clearly defined and serious injury to” BlackBerry and Google. See In re
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-VAC Document 340 Filed 04/19/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 14460
`
`Avandia Mktg. Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 672 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting
`
`Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Thus, BlackBerry’s and Google’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the
`
`proposed redacted sensitive information outweighs any countervailing public interest. 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 request that the Court permit the
`
`limited redactions requested by the parties, and 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 340 Filed 04/19/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 14461
`
`
`
`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
`bpalapura@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
`
`
`
`