1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 APPLE INC., Case No. 25-cv-07105-EKL (VKD)
9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISPUTE RE PROPOSED 10 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER AND RE APPLE’S MOTION TO RETAIN 11 CHEN SHI, et al., “SOURCE CODE” DESIGNATIONS 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 263, 350, 384
13 14 This order addresses two related disputes. The first dispute concerns the appropriate scope 15 of the “Source Code” designation for purposes of a protective order governing the exchange of 16 discovery in this action. See Dkt. Nos. 350, 384. The second dispute concerns Apple’s 17 application of this designation to more than 120 discovery documents or portions of documents. 18 See Dkt. No. 263.1 These disputes are suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil 19 L.R. 7-1(b). The Court addresses each dispute separately. 20 21
22 1 The parties have filed several motions to seal portions of their respective briefs regarding Apple’s Motion to Retain “Source Code” Designations, as well as certain exhibits submitted with 23 those papers. Dkt. Nos. 264, 311, 327, 339. Apple requests that these materials (including a slightly narrower set of redacted information in defendants’ opposition brief) remain sealed, 24 because the public disclosure of the subject information would harm Apple. Apple says that the documents in question refer to Apple’s trade secret files and highly confidential information 25 (including internal projects and code names, confidential testing and design information, and unreleased Apple features) that are not publicly known. As these sealing motions relate to a 26 discovery matter, the good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098-99 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 27 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1 I. PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 A. Scope of “Source Code” Designation 3 The parties agree that a protective order with three categories of confidentiality 4 designations should be entered in this action. They disagree about what materials should qualify 5 for designation in the third, most-protective category, which the parties refer to as “HIGHLY 6 CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY–SOURCE CODE” (“Source Code”). See Dkt. 7 No. 350. 8 The Northern District of California Model Stipulated Protective Order for Litigation 9 Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets (“Model 10 Order”)2 defines “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL–SOURCE CODE Information or Items” as: 11 extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items” representing computer code and associated comments and revision 12 histories, formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics that 13 define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs, disclosure of which to another Party 14 or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 15 16 Model Order, sec. 2.9. The Model Order affords material designated under section 2.9 heightened 17 protections, including: (1) permitting inspection only on a secured computer in a secured room 18 without Internet access or network access to other computers; (2) disallowing electronic copies 19 and restricting the availability of printed copies; and (3) requiring the receiving party to keep 20 records of access to the material. Id., sec. 9. 21 The parties’ proposed protective order is adapted from the Model Order. Plaintiff Apple, 22 Inc. (“Apple”) urges the Court to adopt a definition for “Source Code” in section 2.9 that tracks 23 the Model Order’s definition, with one significant addition, noted below: 24 extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items” representing computer code and associated comments and revision 25 histories, formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics that 26 define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of 27 software or hardware designs, or roadmaps for unreleased products 1 or features, disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would 2 create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 3 4 Dkt. No. 384-1 (sec. 2.9) (emphasis added). Apple argues that its product roadmaps “reveal 5 Apple’s most strategic priorities, including unreleased technologies, future product plans, and 6 methods for overcoming technical or competitive barriers.” Dkt. No. 263 at 5. It argues that 7 because roadmap-related documents contain specific and extremely sensitive technical 8 information, improper or inadvertent disclosure of these documents, like the improper or 9 inadvertent disclosure of “computer code and associated comments and revision histories, 10 formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics that define or otherwise describe in detail the 11 algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs,” would cause Apple irreparable harm, “as 12 it would provide insight into Apple’s product plans for years into the future.” Id. at 8. 13 Defendants Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. (“OPPO”) and 14 InnoPeak Technology, Inc. (“InnoPeak”) (collectively, “Defendants”) argue that the Court should 15 adopt the Model Order’s definition, which does not include “roadmaps for unreleased products or 16 features.” Dkt. No. 384-1 (sec. 2.9) (Defendants’ proposal). According to Defendants, documents 17 within the scope of the Model Order’s Source Code definition receive the extra protection 18 associated with that designation because source code and associated materials are particularly 19 vulnerable to exploitation if copied because they are “portable and executable.” Dkt. No. 384 at 4; 20 Dkt. No. 310 at 2. Specifically, Defendants argue that the “essential characteristic that justifies 21 Source Code handling” is “the ability to copy to an electronic file and use it to replicate functional 22 technology.” Dkt. No. 310 at 2. 23 In this District, the few decisions addressing the scope of section 2.9 of the Model Order 24 recognize that it encompasses not only source code and associated comments and revision 25 histories, but also “formulas, engineering specifications, [and] schematics” that “define or 26 otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs,” 27 disclosure of which to others would create a substantial risk serious harm that could not be 1 Order for this category of material. See, e.g., Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-00201- 2 WHO (LJC), 2025 WL 870358, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2025); Lone Star Silicon Innovations 3 LLC v. Toshiba Corp., No. 17-cv-4034-WHA, Dkt. No. 215 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017). As 4 explained in Lone Star, section 2.9 does not cover all formulas, engineering specification, or 5 schematics, but only those that “require protection on par with true source code” because they 6 define or describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs for which 7 heightened protections are needed. Lone Star, No. 17-cv-4034-WHA, Dkt. No. 215 at 4. 8 However, the protections of section 2.9 of the Model Order are not limited to technical 9 information that is both “portable and executable,” as Defendants argue. The Court agrees with 10 Lone Star’s construction of section 2.9. 11 Generally, the Model Order provisions are regarded as “presumptively reasonable.” See 12 Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. 11-cv-02709 EMC (LB), 2012 WL 601806, at *1 (N.D. 13 Cal. Feb. 23, 2012).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 APPLE INC., Case No. 25-cv-07105-EKL (VKD)
9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISPUTE RE PROPOSED 10 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER AND RE APPLE’S MOTION TO RETAIN 11 CHEN SHI, et al., “SOURCE CODE” DESIGNATIONS 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 263, 350, 384
13 14 This order addresses two related disputes. The first dispute concerns the appropriate scope 15 of the “Source Code” designation for purposes of a protective order governing the exchange of 16 discovery in this action. See Dkt. Nos. 350, 384. The second dispute concerns Apple’s 17 application of this designation to more than 120 discovery documents or portions of documents. 18 See Dkt. No. 263.1 These disputes are suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil 19 L.R. 7-1(b). The Court addresses each dispute separately. 20 21
22 1 The parties have filed several motions to seal portions of their respective briefs regarding Apple’s Motion to Retain “Source Code” Designations, as well as certain exhibits submitted with 23 those papers. Dkt. Nos. 264, 311, 327, 339. Apple requests that these materials (including a slightly narrower set of redacted information in defendants’ opposition brief) remain sealed, 24 because the public disclosure of the subject information would harm Apple. Apple says that the documents in question refer to Apple’s trade secret files and highly confidential information 25 (including internal projects and code names, confidential testing and design information, and unreleased Apple features) that are not publicly known. As these sealing motions relate to a 26 discovery matter, the good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098-99 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 27 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1 I. PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 A. Scope of “Source Code” Designation 3 The parties agree that a protective order with three categories of confidentiality 4 designations should be entered in this action. They disagree about what materials should qualify 5 for designation in the third, most-protective category, which the parties refer to as “HIGHLY 6 CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY–SOURCE CODE” (“Source Code”). See Dkt. 7 No. 350. 8 The Northern District of California Model Stipulated Protective Order for Litigation 9 Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets (“Model 10 Order”)2 defines “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL–SOURCE CODE Information or Items” as: 11 extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items” representing computer code and associated comments and revision 12 histories, formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics that 13 define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs, disclosure of which to another Party 14 or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 15 16 Model Order, sec. 2.9. The Model Order affords material designated under section 2.9 heightened 17 protections, including: (1) permitting inspection only on a secured computer in a secured room 18 without Internet access or network access to other computers; (2) disallowing electronic copies 19 and restricting the availability of printed copies; and (3) requiring the receiving party to keep 20 records of access to the material. Id., sec. 9. 21 The parties’ proposed protective order is adapted from the Model Order. Plaintiff Apple, 22 Inc. (“Apple”) urges the Court to adopt a definition for “Source Code” in section 2.9 that tracks 23 the Model Order’s definition, with one significant addition, noted below: 24 extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items” representing computer code and associated comments and revision 25 histories, formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics that 26 define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of 27 software or hardware designs, or roadmaps for unreleased products 1 or features, disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would 2 create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 3 4 Dkt. No. 384-1 (sec. 2.9) (emphasis added). Apple argues that its product roadmaps “reveal 5 Apple’s most strategic priorities, including unreleased technologies, future product plans, and 6 methods for overcoming technical or competitive barriers.” Dkt. No. 263 at 5. It argues that 7 because roadmap-related documents contain specific and extremely sensitive technical 8 information, improper or inadvertent disclosure of these documents, like the improper or 9 inadvertent disclosure of “computer code and associated comments and revision histories, 10 formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics that define or otherwise describe in detail the 11 algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs,” would cause Apple irreparable harm, “as 12 it would provide insight into Apple’s product plans for years into the future.” Id. at 8. 13 Defendants Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. (“OPPO”) and 14 InnoPeak Technology, Inc. (“InnoPeak”) (collectively, “Defendants”) argue that the Court should 15 adopt the Model Order’s definition, which does not include “roadmaps for unreleased products or 16 features.” Dkt. No. 384-1 (sec. 2.9) (Defendants’ proposal). According to Defendants, documents 17 within the scope of the Model Order’s Source Code definition receive the extra protection 18 associated with that designation because source code and associated materials are particularly 19 vulnerable to exploitation if copied because they are “portable and executable.” Dkt. No. 384 at 4; 20 Dkt. No. 310 at 2. Specifically, Defendants argue that the “essential characteristic that justifies 21 Source Code handling” is “the ability to copy to an electronic file and use it to replicate functional 22 technology.” Dkt. No. 310 at 2. 23 In this District, the few decisions addressing the scope of section 2.9 of the Model Order 24 recognize that it encompasses not only source code and associated comments and revision 25 histories, but also “formulas, engineering specifications, [and] schematics” that “define or 26 otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs,” 27 disclosure of which to others would create a substantial risk serious harm that could not be 1 Order for this category of material. See, e.g., Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-00201- 2 WHO (LJC), 2025 WL 870358, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2025); Lone Star Silicon Innovations 3 LLC v. Toshiba Corp., No. 17-cv-4034-WHA, Dkt. No. 215 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017). As 4 explained in Lone Star, section 2.9 does not cover all formulas, engineering specification, or 5 schematics, but only those that “require protection on par with true source code” because they 6 define or describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs for which 7 heightened protections are needed. Lone Star, No. 17-cv-4034-WHA, Dkt. No. 215 at 4. 8 However, the protections of section 2.9 of the Model Order are not limited to technical 9 information that is both “portable and executable,” as Defendants argue. The Court agrees with 10 Lone Star’s construction of section 2.9. 11 Generally, the Model Order provisions are regarded as “presumptively reasonable.” See 12 Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. 11-cv-02709 EMC (LB), 2012 WL 601806, at *1 (N.D. 13 Cal. Feb. 23, 2012). To the extent Apple argues that “roadmaps for unreleased products or 14 features” that do not “define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software 15 or hardware designs” should nevertheless receive the heightened protections afforded documents 16 “on par with true source code,” this argument is not persuasive. As Defendants observe, many 17 product or feature roadmaps are higher-level business strategy documents that serve as a guide for 18 product and technology development, prioritization, and planning, but do not reveal the details of 19 the products or technology. While such documents may well contain extremely sensitive 20 confidential information, Apple has not shown that these documents cannot be protected from the 21 risk of inadvertent disclosure by invoking, for example, the Model Order protections for 22 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY Information or Items” (“HC-AEO”). 23 See Model Order, secs. 2.8, 7.3, 7.4. Conversely, a product or feature roadmap may contain 24 information that defines or otherwise describes in detail the algorithms or structure of software or 25 hardware designs. See Dkt. No. 264-6 ¶ 10. If that is the case, the roadmap document (or portion 26 thereof) containing that kind of information may properly be designated as Source Code and 27 afforded the same heightened protection. 1 section 2.9 of the proposed protective order by adopting the following Source Code” definition: 2 extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items” representing computer code and associated comments and revision 3 histories, formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics, or 4 roadmaps for unreleased products or features that define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software 5 or hardware designs, disclosure of which to another Party or Non- Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not 6 be avoided by less restrictive means.3 7 The Court’s resolution of this dispute regarding proposed section 2.9 does not preclude any 8 party from seeking additional or different protections on a document-specific basis for good cause 9 shown. 10 B. Protections for “Source Code” 11 Apple argues that the Model Order’s protections for “Source Code” should be adopted in 12 section 8.4 of the parties’ proposed protective order. Dkt. No. 384 at 3; see Dkt. No. 350-1 (sec. 13 8.4). Defendants suggest that the parties should confer further regarding the applicable protections 14 once the Court resolves Apple’s motion to retain its existing Source Code designations. Dkt. No. 15 384 at 3. 16 The Court is inclined to adopt Apple’s proposed text for section 8.4, which generally 17 tracks the Model Order provisions for protection of such material but defers doing so at this time. 18 If Defendants wish to propose any modifications to Apple’s proposed text in view of this order, 19 Defendants must send their proposal to Apple no later than May 22, 2026. The parties shall 20 confer regarding any such proposal, after which they must submit a final proposed protective 21 order, including their agreed or competing proposals for section 8.4, for approval by the Court no 22 later than June 1, 2026. 23 II. APPLE’S DISPUTED SOURCE CODE DESIGNATIONS 24 A. Summary of Dispute 25 Apple advises that, at present, it has designated 13 documents in their entirety and portions 26 of an additional 116 documents as Source Code under section 2.9 of the parties’ proposed 27 1 protective order. Dkt. No. 263 at 2. Defendants object that Apple has designated material that 2 does not qualify for protection as Source Code. Dkt. No. 310 at 1. At the Court’s direction (Dkt. 3 No. 179), the parties have submitted eight documents for in camera review: 4 1. Ex. 3 (APL-SHI_00000893) / Ex. 4 (APL-SHI_00007945) (redacted) 5 2. Ex. 5 (APL-SHI_00001071) / Ex. 6 (APL-SHI_00008043) (redacted) 6 3. Ex. 7 (APL-SHI_00001073) / Ex. 8 (APL-SHI_00008087) (redacted) 7 4. Ex. 9 (APL-SHI_00000748) / Ex. 10 (APL-SHI_00006987) (redacted) 8 5. Ex. 11 (APL-SHI_00000754) / Ex. 12 (APL-SHI_00006690) (redacted) 9 6. Ex. 13 (APL-SHI_00001123) 10 7. Ex. 14 (APL-SHI_00001434) / Ex. 15 (APL-SHI_00010516) (redacted) 11 8. Ex. 16 (APL-SHI_00006441) / Ex. 17 (APL-SHI_00012821) (redacted) 12 Dkt. No. 263 at 3-4. Apple argues that the documents and portions of documents that it has 13 designated as Source Code should retain that designation. Id. at 1. Defendants argue that all eight 14 documents should be designated HC-AEO, with the exception of pages 37, 39 and 40 of Exhibit 15 16. Dkt. No. 310 at 1. For purposes of its review, the Court applies the definition of Source Code 16 adopted above in section I.A of this order. 17 B. Review of Disputed In Camera Documents 18 The parties group the eight documents for review into three categories, and the Court 19 follows this organization. In conducting its review and assessment, the Court has carefully 20 considered the parties’ respective arguments, the declaration of Brian Land (Dkt. Nos. 264-5 and 21 339-5), and the documents submitted in camera. 22 1. Schematics, engineering specifications, specific components requirements 23 24 Apple argues that the designated portions of Exhibits 11, 13, and 16 contain “annotated 25 system schematics, engineering specifications, and specific requirements for components,” and 26 that these materials fall within the scope of section 2.9 of the Model Order. Dkt. No. 263 at 5-6. 27 Defendants argue that while these documents present “closer calls” than the other disputed 1 does not meet the Source Code definition. Dkt. No. 310 at 7. 2 a. Exhibit 11 3 Exhibit 11 is a presentation relating to wearable ECG technology. Two pages of this 4 presentation contain system-level schematics (pp. 5, 25). While the Court questions whether these 5 schematics reveal the level of detail contemplated by the Source Code definition, the Court 6 accepts Mr. Land’s declaration testimony regarding these schematics, including his assertion that 7 they could be used to replicate the functional components of systems depicted. 8 The remainder of the designated portions of Exhibit 11 do not meet the Source Code 9 definition because they do not define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of 10 software or hardware design. Instead, these pages contain performance specifications, including 11 testing parameters, values, and metrics (pp. 6, 35); voltage requirements for electrical components, 12 with illustrations and examples (pp. 29-33); and device or component dimensions (p. 36). 13 b. Exhibit 13 14 Exhibit 13 is an “engineering requirements specification” for an optical PPG sensor in the 15 Apple watch. It is addressed to system integration engineers, test engineers, and firmware and 16 software engineers, and provides a comprehensive description of the design and testing 17 requirements for hardware and related software for the sensor. As Defendants acknowledge, this 18 document “contains detailed specifications.” Dkt. No. 310 at 8. While some discrete aspects or 19 portions of this document may not merit Source Code protection in isolation, Apple has 20 demonstrated that the document as a whole meets the applicable Source Code definition, as the 21 document describes in technical detail the structure of software and hardware designs. 22 c. Exhibit 16 23 Exhibit 16 is a presentation relating to a noise sensitivity analysis for a particular feature. 24 Defendants agree that pages 37, 39 and 40 of Exhibit 16 may properly be designated as Source 25 Code, and the Court grants Apple’s motion as to these pages. 26 Several designated pages of this document contain formulas that Apple claims are 27 “important to calculating relevant assumptions related to noise sensitivity.” Dkt. No. 263 at 7. 1 clear that any of them define or describe in detail engineering specifications for software or 2 hardware design. Giving Apple the benefit of the doubt here, the Court concludes that Apple may 3 designate the formulas that appear on pages 48, 49, 51, 57, 59, 61, 63 and 64 as Source Code. 4 The remainder of the designated pages of Exhibit 16 do not meet the Source Code 5 definition because they do not define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of 6 software or hardware design. Instead, most of the remaining pages contain noise sensitivity 7 analyses; descriptions of testing conditions, dependencies and constraints; error contributions; 8 performance targets; and testing methodologies (pp. 47-49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 61, 63-64).4 Indeed, 9 Apple acknowledges that the information contained in Exhibit 16 is sensitive because it reveals 10 important information about noise sensitivity and how it impacts performance. See Dkt. No. 263 11 at 7 (citing Dkt. No. 264-6 ¶¶ 34-35). 12 2. Chipset schematics, design notes, and feature definitions 13 Apple argues that the designated portions of Exhibits 5 and 7 contain “highly sensitive 14 schematics defining in detail the structure of the designing [sic] specifications [] and specific 15 engineering requirements for components,” and that these materials fall within the scope of section 16 2.9 of the Model Order. Dkt. No. 263 at 7. Defendants argue that the majority of Exhibits 5 and 7 17 include “non-technical feature nomenclature and descriptions” and “business planning” 18 information that does not qualify for Source Code protection. Dkt. No. 310 at 5-7. 19 a. Exhibit 5 20 Exhibit 5 is an “architecture update” presentation for an unreleased product. Apple claims 21 the designated portions of this document include “chipset schematics” and “system integration 22 diagrams describing in detail the design and component optical architecture” of the product. Dkt. 23 No. 263 at 7. In addition, Apple explains that its designations extend to “specific assumptions” 24 and “engineering specifications,” as well as “future opportunities.” Id. 25 The only designated portions of Exhibit 5 that meet the applicable Source Code definition 26 are pages 4, which contains a “chipset and system integration diagram,” and 31-34, which contain 27 1 component schematics. While the Court questions whether these schematics and diagrams reveal 2 the level of detail contemplated by the Source Code definition, the Court accepts Mr. Land’s 3 declaration testimony that they are sufficiently detailed to describe the design of the system 4 architecture and components depicted. 5 The remainder of the designated pages of Exhibit 5 include meeting agendas (pp. 2, 26); 6 feature summaries (pp. 3, 5-6); implementation options for the product (pp. 7, 27); battery life and 7 power consumption considerations (pp. 8, 13-21, 28-29); high-level overview of the product 8 architecture, including a comparison with an earlier generation product (pp. 10-12, 24); proposed 9 next steps and a product roadmap (pp. 22, 25); and a summary of system integration 10 considerations (p. 35). This material does not meet the Source Code definition because it does not 11 define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware design. 12 b. Exhibit 7 13 Exhibit 7 is a “feature definition” presentation for an unreleased product. Apple claims the 14 designated portions of this document include “schematics of chipsets,” as well as development 15 timelines and roadmap, strategy, and planning information for next generation product features. 16 Dkt. No. 263 at 7-8. 17 The Court has reviewed all designated portions of Exhibit 7 and has identified no chipset 18 schematics. Rather, as Apple acknowledges, the designated portions of Exhibit 7 contain: feature 19 definition, product strategy, cost analysis, user requirements, development timelines, and product 20 roadmap information. This material does not meet the Source Code definition because it does not 21 define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware design. 22 3. Product and feature roadmaps 23 Apple acknowledges that product and feature roadmaps do not fall within the scope of 24 section 2.9 of the Model Order. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 263 at 1, 2. Likewise, these roadmap 25 documents generally do not meet the applicable Source Code definition in the parties’ proposed 26 protective order. 27 1 a. Exhibit 3 2 Exhibit 3 is a roadmap for certain Apple watch systems. The designated portions of the 3 document include typical roadmap subject matter, such as feature and product planning, timelines, 4 anticipated changes, and historical overviews. No portion of this document is properly designated 5 Source Code. 6 b. Exhibit 9 7 Exhibit 9 is a presentation for an “all hands” meeting regarding health sensing hardware. 8 The designated portions of the document include typical roadmap subject matter, such as feature 9 and product planning, timelines, anticipated changes, and historical overviews. The document 10 also includes high-level discussion of product architecture, key technologies, and implementation 11 considerations, as well as functional diagrams for hardware components and systems. No portion 12 of this document is properly designated Source Code. 13 c. Exhibit 14 14 Exhibit 14 is an introductory presentation about health sensing hardware. The designated 15 portions of the document contain the following information: functional diagrams and high-level 16 descriptions of features; discussion of design issues; topology diagram; feature overview; 17 historical overview; feature planning; sensor platform roadmap; feature roadmap; high-level 18 architecture diagram; design challenges; study; and feature definitions. In addition, the designated 19 portions include a detailed discussion of the results of a noise sensitivity analysis (pp. 7-12, 14-20, 20 24). With one exception, none of this material is properly designated Source Code. 21 The one exception is a schematic on page 37 that shows a chipset “block diagram” and 22 “system connectivity.” While it is not clear whether this schematic reveals the level of detail 23 contemplated by the Source Code definition, it is similar to other schematics the Court has found 24 do meet that definition, and the Court concludes that this page likewise may be designated Source 25 Code. 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 As to the parties proposed protective order, the Court adopts the definition of Source Code ] modifications to Apple’s proposed section 8.4, they must send their proposal to Apple no later 2 || than May 22, 2026. The parties must submit a final proposed protective order, including their 3 agreed or competing proposals for section 8.4, for approval by the Court no later than June 1, 4 || 2026. 5 As to Apple’s motion to retain Source Code designations, Apple’s motion is granted as to 6 || the following documents or portions thereof: 7 1. Exhibit 5 (pages 4 and 31-34) 8 2. Exhibit 11 (pages 5 and 25) 9 3. Exhibit 13 (all pages) 10 4. Exhibit 14 (page 37) 1] 5. Exhibit 16 (pages 37, 39, and 40, and formulas on pages 48, 49, 51, 57, 59, 61, 63 12 and 64) 13 || Apple’s motion is otherwise denied. Unless the parties agree otherwise, Apple must re-designate 14 || all other portions of the eight documents submitted for in camera review. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: May 18, 2026
Z 18 Vrain ReDarche: Virginia K. DeMarchi 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28