Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 377 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11586-FDS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO IMPOUND/SEAL DESIGNATED MATERIAL
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2 and the Order Adopting Discovery Stipulation and Modified
`
`Protective Order in this case (“Protective Order”), ECF No. 59, Defendant Fitbit LLC (“Fitbit”),
`
`respectfully requests the Court to impound (seal) an un-redacted copy of (1) Fitbit’s Reply (Dkt.
`
`372) In Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment Of Noninfringement Of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,277,377 (Dkt. 329) (“Noninfringement Reply”), (2) Fitbit’s Reply (Dkt. 374) In Support Of Its
`
`Motion For Summary Judgment Of Invalidity Of U.S. Patent No. 8,277,377 Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`101 (Dkt. 333) (“101 Reply”) (collectively, “Reply Briefs”), and (3) Exhibit 1 filed in support of
`
`Fitbit’s 101 Reply (Dkt. 375-1) (“Exhibit 1”), and allow Fitbit to file redacted public versions of
`
`Fitbit’s Reply Briefs. Plaintiff Philips North America LLC (“Philips”) does not oppose this Motion
`
`to Impound/Seal.
`
`The Protective Order allows parties to designate material that contains or constitutes
`
`confidential business information as “CONFIDENTIAL.” The Protective Order also allows
`
`parties to designate material that contains or discusses proprietary source code as “Confidential
`
`Source Code—Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information.” Fitbit’s Reply Briefs discuss and cite to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11586-FDS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO IMPOUND/SEAL DESIGNATED MATERIAL
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2 and the Order Adopting Discovery Stipulation and Modified
`
`Protective Order in this case (“Protective Order”), ECF No. 59, Defendant Fitbit LLC (“Fitbit”),
`
`respectfully requests the Court to impound (seal) an un-redacted copy of (1) Fitbit’s Reply (Dkt.
`
`372) In Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment Of Noninfringement Of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,277,377 (Dkt. 329) (“Noninfringement Reply”), (2) Fitbit’s Reply (Dkt. 374) In Support Of Its
`
`Motion For Summary Judgment Of Invalidity Of U.S. Patent No. 8,277,377 Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`101 (Dkt. 333) (“101 Reply”) (collectively, “Reply Briefs”), and (3) Exhibit 1 filed in support of
`
`Fitbit’s 101 Reply (Dkt. 375-1) (“Exhibit 1”), and allow Fitbit to file redacted public versions of
`
`Fitbit’s Reply Briefs. Plaintiff Philips North America LLC (“Philips”) does not oppose this Motion
`
`to Impound/Seal.
`
`The Protective Order allows parties to designate material that contains or constitutes
`
`confidential business information as “CONFIDENTIAL.” The Protective Order also allows
`
`parties to designate material that contains or discusses proprietary source code as “Confidential
`
`Source Code—Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information.” Fitbit’s Reply Briefs discuss and cite to
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 377 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`confidential information in previously filed and sealed exhibits and briefs and in Exhibit 1. Thus,
`
`Fitbit’s reply briefs contain and discuss (1) sensitive business information designated Confidential
`
`under the Protective Order by Fitbit, Philips, and third parties, and/or (2) confidential information
`
`regarding the operation of the accused Fitbit wearable devices, applications, and servers, including
`
`descriptions of Fitbit source code, that has been designated either Confidential or Confidential
`
`Source Code—Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information under the Protective Order by Fitbit. Public
`
`disclosure of the Fitbit Confidential or Confidential Source Code—Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`Information would risk competitive harm to Fitbit.
`
`Exhibit 1 is a copy of Dr. Roger Quy’s deposition transcript from Philips North Am., LLC
`
`v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS (C.D. Cal. 2019), which was designated
`
`Confidential by third-party Dr. Quy in that separate and distinct case.
`
`Additionally, Fitbit has filed redacted versions of the Reply Briefs, which redact
`
`discussions of the same Fitbit confidential information and Fitbit source code discussed above and
`
`included in some of the aforementioned documents, public disclosure of which would risk
`
`competitive harm to Fitbit. Fitbit’s redacted Reply briefs also redact certain Philips and third party
`
`information that was designated Confidential under the Protective Order by Philips and/or third
`
`parties
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Fitbit respectfully requests that the Court permit Fitbit to file
`
`both a public redacted version of the Reply Briefs, and an un-redacted version of the Reply Briefs
`
`under seal. Fitbit also requests that the Court permit it to file Exhibit 1 under seal. Fitbit further
`
`requests that the above remain impounded until further Order by the Court, and that upon
`
`expiration of the impoundment, the document be returned to Fitbit’s counsel.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 377 Filed 04/13/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`Dated: April 13, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`__________
`/s/ David J. Shaw
`David J. Shaw (pro hac vice)
`dshaw@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 200
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Telephone: (202) 451-4900
`Facsimile: (202) 451-4901
`
`Leslie M. Spencer (pro hac vice)
`lspencer@desmaraisllp.com
`Karim Z. Oussayef (pro hac vice)
`koussayef@desmaraisllp.com
`Brian D. Matty (pro hac vice)
`bmatty@desmaraisllp.com
`Henry Ard (pro hac vice)
`hard@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: (212) 351-3400
`Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
`
`Ameet A. Modi (pro hac vice)
`amodi@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`101 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 573-1900
`Facsimile: (415) 573-1901
`
`Gregory F. Corbett (BBO #646394)
`gcorbett@wolfgreenfield.com
`Alexandra K. Kim (BBO #707361)
`akim@wolfgreenfield.com
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 646-8000
`Facsimile: (617) 646-8646
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Fitbit LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 377 Filed 04/13/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(A)(2)
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Fitbit conferred with counsel for Philips
`and attempted in good faith to resolve or narrow the issues in dispute on April 13, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David J. Shaw
`David J. Shaw
`
`
`CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 37.1
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Fitbit has complied with the provisions
`of Local Rule 37.1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David J. Shaw
`David J. Shaw
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that this document is being filed through the Court’s electronic filing system,
`
`which serves counsel for other parties who are registered participants as identified on the Notice
`of Electronic Filing (NEF). Any counsel for other parties who are not registered participants are
`being served by first class mail on the date of the electronic filing.
`
`
`/s/ Alexandra K. Kim
`Alexandra K. Kim
`
`Dated: April 13, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
