1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8
10 SONOS, INC., 11 Plaintiff, No. C 20-06754 WHA No. C 21-07559 WHA 12 v.
13 GOOGLE LLC, OMNIBUS ORDER RE FINAL MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 Defendant.
15 16 This omnibus order addresses the remaining omnibus motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 831, 17 851). In accordance with prior orders, the parties have tailored their requests to seal 18 considerably (see Dkt. Nos. 817, 846). At this stage, the requests largely involve many 19 different filings of the same documents, and they have been granted at a higher rate than in past 20 sealing orders (see Dkt. Nos. 334, 518). The Court again thanks Sonos and its counsel for the 21 careful work narrowing its sealing requests (see Dkt. No. 846 at 1). For the reasons stated 22 herein, Sonos’s omnibus motion to seal is GRANTED. The Court now thanks Google and its 23 counsel for further narrowing its sealing requests and providing detailed charts (see Dkt. 24 Nos. 852–54). For the reasons stated herein, Google’s omnibus motion to seal is GRANTED IN 25 PART and DENIED IN PART. 26 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 27 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 1 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only 2 upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 3 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the 4 merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The compelling 5 reasons standard applies to most judicial records. Evidentiary motions, such as motions in 6 limine and Daubert motions, can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id. at 1098– 7 1100. 8 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that 9 explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that 10 will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not 11 sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 12 sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could 13 result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would 14 overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for 15 sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons 16 may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 17 competitive standing,” especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information. 18 See Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 19 Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or 20 nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or 21 portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung 22 Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). 23 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 24 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 25 sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). 26 1. SONOS’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 831). 27 Regarding Sonos’s omnibus motion and related exhibits, this order rules as follows: Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning 1 No. Sealed 2 831-4 Proposed GRANTED. Sonos seeks to seal the proposed term Term Sheet sheet containing the details of a licensing 3 agreement that the parties explored but did not execute prior to this litigation. 4 Google seeks to seal this document as well (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 854-3). 5
6 As Sonos observes, solely the existence of this proposed term sheet was 7 discussed in open court at trial, not its details (see Tr. 1038:6–1039:5). 8 According to Sonos, “the parties were only able to consider a pre-litigation 9 license agreement because of the 10 understanding that those negotiations would be confidential, subject to an 11 NDA, and subject to the restrictions on use imposed by Federal Rule of Evidence 12 408” (Dkt. No. 831 at 4).
13 Critically, the proposed term sheet was, 14 at most, only tangentially related to the merits of this action. What’s more, its 15 disclosure could foreseeably cause the parties competitive harm and chill others 16 from engaging in negotiations that could 17 avoid such costly and prolonged litigation in other circumstances. 18 831-5 Proposed GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4. 19 Term Sheet 20 831-6 Excerpt of GRANTED. Both parties seek to seal material from Bakewell Rebuttal this expert report excerpt. For rulings on 21 Expert Report the additional material that Google seeks to seal, please refer to the entry for Dkt. 22 No. 854-5.
23 The material that Sonos seeks to seal, in blue boxing, is narrowly tailored and 24 references confidential details of the 25 proposed term sheet, which can be sealed for the reasons stated in the entry on the 26 proposed term sheet above. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4. 27 831-7 Google’s Response GRANTED. The material that Sonos seeks to seal is 1 to Sonos’s First narrowly tailored and references 2 Motion in Limine confidential details of the proposed term sheet, which can be sealed for the 3 reasons stated in the entry on the proposed term sheet above. See entry for 4 Dkt. No. 831-4.
5 831-8 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7. 6 Malackowski Supplemental 7 Expert Report 831-9 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7. 8 Bakewell Rebuttal Expert Report 9 831-10 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7. 10 Bakewell Rebuttal Expert Report 11 831-11 Google’s Response GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7. to Sonos’s First 12 Motion in Limine 13 831-12 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7. Malackowski 14 Supplemental Expert Report 15 831-13 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7. Bakewell Rebuttal 16 Expert Report 17 831-14 Proposed GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4. Term Sheet 18 831-15 Proposed GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4. Term Sheet 19 831-16 Proposed GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4. 20 Term Sheet 831-17 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7. 21 Malackowski Supplemental 22 Expert Report 23 831-18 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7. Bakewell Rebuttal 24 Expert Report 831-19 Proposed GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4. 25 Term Sheet 831-20 Proposed GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4. 26 Term Sheet 27 2. GOOGLE’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 851). Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning 1 No. Sealed 2 852-1 Google’s GRANTED. This request is now narrowly tailored to a Opposition to single source code flow for adding a 3 Sonos’s First device to a multizone group on page 10. Motion for 4 Summary As Google observes, “[a]lthough the Judgment general types of information that were 5 included in a join_group command were 6 discussed at trial, the source code implementation of the same was not 7 disclosed” (Dkt. No. 852 at 5). Although the Court doubts that competitive harm 8 would in fact befall Google if this straightforward implementation were 9 disclosed, here, the public interest in this 10 material is satisfied by the detailed discussion of join_group elsewhere. 11 852-2 Excerpt of ’966 GRANTED. This request is now narrowly tailored to 12 Patent the source code flow above, as well as Infringement source code function calls and hierarchy 13 Contention Chart information that is considerably more 14 detailed. Again, the public interest in this material is satisfied by discussion of 15 the relevant functions elsewhere. What’s more, the potential for competitive harm 16 is higher here, as disclosure could enable 17 others to replicate how Google’s code is structured or introduce security risks. 18 852-3 Excerpt of GRANTED IN The request to seal the function name at 19 Almeroth PART, line 10 of page 33 is denied. Google has 20 Supplemental DENIED IN failed to demonstrate why that name is Reply Expert PART. more sensitive than those of other 21 Report functions disclosed in surrounding lines. The remainder of the request, with 22 respect to the source code trace, is granted, seeing that it is narrowly 23 tailored, disclosure could cause Google competitive harm, and the public interest 24 is satisfied by discussion of the 25 join_group functionality elsewhere.
26 852-4 Excerpt of GRANTED. This request is now narrowly tailored to Almeroth Opening technical details regarding source code 27 Expert Report functionality and flow, disclosure of harm. Again, the public interest in this 1 material is satisfied by discussion of 2 associated functionality elsewhere.
3 853-1 Excerpt of ’033 GRANTED IN Seeing that Google has provided no Patent PART, explanation as to why disclosure of the 4 Infringement DENIED IN name of the data object on page 11 5 Contention Chart PART. should be sealed, and Google omitted this material from the sealing chart (see 6 Dkt. No. 853 at 1), this order declines to seal it. The remainder of Google’s 7 request is granted. See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4. 8
9 853-2 Excerpt of ’033 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4. Patent 10 Infringement Contention Chart 11 853-3 Excerpt of GRANTED IN As Google observes, it has removed Google’s Third PART, requests to seal source code file names 12 Supplemental DENIED IN and descriptions of certain parameters 13 Objections and PART. (Dkt. No. 853 at 4). The bulk of the Responses to remaining names and parameters that it 14 Sonos’s First Set of requests to seal were not at issue in this Interrogatories litigation and, as such, the public interest 15 in their disclosure is de minimis.
16 That said, “watchNextToken” was 17 already disclosed (e.g., in the infringement contentions chart for the 18 ’033 patent), so there is no justification for sealing that parameter and associated 19 description. Meanwhile, the “MdxRemoteQueueEvent” object was 20 directly relevant to the discussion of 21 remote queues and the MDx server in this litigation, and Google has failed to 22 sufficiently explain why disclosure of this object and associated description 23 would cause it harm. As such, Google’s request is denied with respect to this 24 material. 25 853-4 Excerpt of GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 853-3. 26 Google’s Third PART, Supplemental DENIED IN 27 Objections and PART. Sonos’s First Set of 1 Interrogatories 2 853-5 Excerpt of GRANTED IN Google significantly reduced its request MacLellan PART, to seal so as to “[c]ontain[] testimony 3 Deposition DENIED IN from a Google witness explaining the Transcript PART. operation of specific source code lines 4 for casting and stream transfer functionalities” (Dkt. No. 853 at 5). The 5 explanation of those specific source code 6 lines did not come up at trial, and there is little public interest in their disclosure, so 7 the bulk of Google’s request is granted.
8 The highlighted text on pages 114, 165, 173 (only lines 17–25), 174, 183 (only 9 lines 18–25), and 195–96, however, is 10 not tailored to specific source code lines but rather contains generalized 11 explanation of casting and stream transfer functionalities, which were 12 discussed in support of Google’s defenses in dispositive motion practice 13 and at trial. As such, there is substantial 14 public interest, and little potential for harm, flowing from disclosure of such 15 material. Google’s request as to these passages is denied. 16
17 853-6 Excerpt of ’033 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4. Patent 18 Infringement Contention Chart 19 853-7 Excerpt of Schmidt GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4. Opening Expert 20 Report 21 853-8 Excerpt of GRANTED IN Google is correct that the image on page Bhattacharjee PART, 38 contains information from an internal 22 Rebuttal Expert DENIED IN document involving the transmission, Report PART. storage, and processing of security 23 tokens and credentials not at issue in this litigation. But Bhattacharjee’s boxed 24 items within this image were at issue in 25 this litigation. The image should be redacted in a way that omits what was 26 not at issue and keeps what was at issue. In other words, Bhattacharjee’s boxed 27 items, as well as “Watch Next Service” and “Player Service,” should not be 1 redacted. 2 The remainder of Google’s request to 3 seal is granted. The pertinent material was either not at issue in this litigation or 4 was sufficiently technically detailed that it could cause competitive harm to 5 Google, with the public interest served 6 by surrounding description that Google does not seek to seal. 7 853-9 YouTube Music GRANTED. Google seeks to seal an internal working 8 Internal Document document in which employees discussed casting with YouTube Music, public 9 disclosure of which could cause Google 10 competitive harm.
11 853-10 Excerpt of ’033 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4. Patent 12 Infringement Contention Chart 13 853-11 YouTube Music GRANTED. Google seeks to seal an internal Wiki 14 Internal Wiki entry discussing YouTube Music playback, public disclosure of which 15 could cause Google competitive harm.
16 853-12 Excerpt of GRANTED. Google seeks to seal the personal home 17 Nicholson address of a Google employee, public Deposition disclosure of which could cause privacy 18 Transcript and security issues for that employee and his family. 19 20 853-13 YouTube Music GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 853-11. Internal Wiki 21 853-14 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4. Bhattacharjee 22 Rebuttal Expert Report 23 853-15 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 853-8. Note that 24 Bhattacharjee the image that this order previously Rebuttal Expert declined to redact in full is not included 25 Report in this particular excerpt, so Google’s request as to this particular excerpt is 26 granted in its entirety for the reasons stated previously. 27 853-16 Internal YouTube GRANTED. Google seeks to seal an internal slide 1 Slide Deck deck discussing the operation, design, 2 and architecture of the Streaming Watch functionality with employee 3 commentary, public disclosure of which could cause Google competitive harm. 4 5 853-17 Excerpt of Schmidt GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4. Opening Expert 6 Report 853-18 Excerpt of Schmidt GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4. 7 Opening Expert Report 8 853-19 Excerpt of ’033 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4. Patent 9 Infringement 10 Contention Chart 853-20 Excerpt of GRANTED IN Here, Google requests to seal more 11 Google’s Third PART, material than it did in a prior request Supplemental DENIED IN involving the same excerpt. This 12 Objections and PART. document should be redacted as set out 13 Responses to previously for the reasons discussed Sonos’s First Set of previously. See entry for Dkt. No. 853-3. 14 Interrogatories 853-21 Bhattacharjee GRANTED IN The images on pages 15 and 18 should 15 Declaration PART, be redacted as set out previously for the 16 DENIED IN reasons discussed previously. See entry PART. for Dkt. No. 853-8. 17 With respect to the image on page 18, the 18 portion to the left of “MDx session server” and the descriptive bubbles 19 should also be disclosed because they were directly at issue in this case and 20 these steps were discussed in open court 21 and in prior orders.
22 This order otherwise grants the request to seal technical details regarding source 23 code functionality and flow where the public interest in this material is satisfied 24 by discussion of associated functionality 25 elsewhere.
26 853-22 Google’s Motion GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 852-4. to Strike Slide 27 Deck 1 854-1 Excerpt of GRANTED IN Google requests to seal “references to the Bhattacharjee PART, existence and terms of patent licensing 2 Rebuttal Expert DENIED IN and purchase agreements that were not at Report PART. issue at trial and thus not discussed in 3 open court” (Dkt. No. 854 at 2). At the outset, only one agreement on one page 4 is at issue here, and no terms are referenced. To eliminate the risk of 5 competitive harm to Google that 6 disclosure of the existence of this agreement could cause, all that is 7 necessary is redaction of the name of the other party to the agreement. The mere 8 fact that Google licensed patents related to the routing of data between devices — 9 and that the agreement was finalized in 10 January 2023 — does not subject Google to a risk of competitive harm. It is well- 11 established that Google licenses such patents. 12
13 854-2 Google’s GRANTED IN Google seeks to seal a portion of a Opposition to PART, sentence related to the proposed term 14 Sonos’s Motion to DENIED IN sheet discussed above. To mitigate the Realign the Parties PART. risk of competitive harm, however, all 15 that is necessary is a narrower redaction, excluding the text after “sheet” in line 8. 16
17 854-3 Proposed GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4. Term Sheet 18 854-4 Sonos’s First GRANTED IN Google seeks to seal “references to the Motion in Limine PART, existence and terms of patent licensing 19 DENIED IN and purchase agreements that were not at 20 PART. issue at trial and thus not discussed in open court” (Dkt. No. 854 at 2). No 21 terms are referenced here, however.
22 To mitigate the risk of competitive harm that disclosure of the existence of these 23 agreements could cause, all that is necessary is redaction of the names of the 24 other parties to the agreements that are 25 not public. It is well-established that Google licenses such patents, and the 26 dates of these agreements could not give rise to competitive harm. 27 Note that many of the names of the other 1 parties to the agreements have become 2 public, as Google observes in its chart (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 854 at 3 (“IIF”), 28 3 (“Garnet”)). These names should be unredacted. 4 5 854-5 Excerpt of GRANTED IN Google seeks to seal more from this Bakewell Rebuttal PART, excerpt than Sonos. See entry for Dkt. 6 Expert Report DENIED IN No. 831-6. PART. 7 Specifically, the request to seal compensation information is granted 8 seeing that Google’s compensation rates for engineers are not generally known, 9 and their disclosure could cause 10 competitive harm.
11 Meanwhile, the request to seal information about the proposed term 12 sheet negotiated between Sonos and Google prior to this litigation is granted 13 in part and denied in part. The second 14 sentence in paragraph 501 should be unredacted as follows to reflect what has 15 been made public: “Sonos produced several negotiation documents with 16 Google, including a . . . ‘non-binding’ 17 Confidential Patent License and Business Engagement Agreement (‘the . . . Sonos 18 – Google Term Sheet’). The . . . Sonos – Google Term Sheet was a proposal; it 19 was neither finalized nor executed.” (Here, the date may be redacted seeing 20 that it has not been made known publicly 21 and could cause competitive harm.) And, “term sheet” should be unredacted 22 in line 2 of paragraph 502.
23 Finally, the request to seal information related to the existence and terms of 24 other patent licensing agreements that 25 were not discussed in open court is granted in part and denied in part. These 26 redactions should be narrowed consistent with the instruction above. See entry for 27 Dkt. No. 854-4. In addition, the fact should be unredacted because this was 1 disclosed at trial. 2 The parties shall meet and confer on the 3 refiling of this excerpt in compliance with this order. 4 5 854-6 Google’s Response GRANTED IN Here too, Google must revisit how to Sonos’s First PART, references to other patent licensing 6 Motion in Limine DENIED IN agreements are redacted, further PART. narrowing them as set out above. See 7 entry for Dkt. No. 854-4. The remaining requests to seal related to references to 8 the proposed term sheet are granted for the reasons already stated. See entry for 9 Dkt. Nos. 831-7. 10 854-7 Google’s Response GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7. 11 to Sonos’s Fourth Motion in Limine 12 854-8 Excerpt of GRANTED IN Google seeks to seal numbers of Google 13 Malackowski PART, Home App installs broken down by Supplemental DENIED IN quarter between November 5, 2019, and 14 Expert Report PART. November 15, 2022, for the ’966 patent. As Google acknowledges, the total 15 number of installs between November 2020 and Q4 2022 was discussed during 16 trial (Dkt. No. 854 at 6). Google 17 suggests that disclosing this data at a more granular level on a quarterly basis 18 would cause it competitive harm, but Google has not sufficiently explained 19 how. Accordingly, Google may only redact to omit the downloads that took 20 place outside of the time period 21 discussed during trial.
22 854-9 Proposed GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4. Term Sheet 23 854-10 Excerpt of GRANTED IN Google’s request to seal information 24 Malackowski PART, regarding “loss leading” is granted in Supplemental DENIED IN part and denied in part. Expressly 25 Expert Report PART. without going into numbers, Malackowski testified at trial about 26 Google products being loss leaders (see Tr. 1120:7–15). As such, his broad 27 opinions to that effect should not be Google has generally not garnered gross 1 profits on the sales of the physical 2 hardware devices which enable Google’s infringement.”). The figures and studies 3 he cites, however, which were never made part of the public record, may be 4 redacted as confidential business information. 5
6 Meanwhile, Google’s proposed redactions involving the terms of other 7 licenses should be further tailored as set out above. See entry for Dkt. No. 854-4. 8 9 854-11 Excerpt of GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 854-10. In this Malackowski PART, longer excerpt, the figures that 10 Supplemental DENIED IN Malackowski used in calculating the Expert Report PART. reasonable royalty damages for the zone 11 scene patents should be disclosed on page 10. As discussed, with respect to 12 the ’966 patent, the total number of installs of the Google Home app is 13 already in the public record, and breaking 14 it down by quarter should not cause Google competitive harm. See entry for 15 Dkt. No. 854-8. Likewise, with respect to the ’885 patent, the total number of 16 infringing units is already in the public 17 record, and breaking them down by quarter should not cause Google 18 competitive harm.
19 Meanwhile, the redactions with respect to the direct control (’033 patent) 20 damages calculations on page 9 are 21 acceptable because this information never became a part of the public record 22 and involves Google’s otherwise confidential business information. 23 24 854-12 Excerpt of GRANTED. As noted previously, Google’s Malackowski compensation rates for engineers are not 25 Supplemental generally known, and their disclosure Expert Report could cause Google competitive harm. 26 See entry for Dkt. No. 854-5.
27 854-13 Sonos’s Opposition GRANTED. Google seeks to seal language regarding 1 to Google’s Fourth its net revenues and profits, as well as a 2 Motion in Limine reference to the details of the proposed term sheet. Neither are generally known, 3 and their disclosure could cause Google competitive harm. 4 5 854-14 Excerpt of GRANTED. Google seeks to seal subscription and Malackowski advertising revenue data and usage 6 Supplemental metrics related to the Pixel and the ’033 Expert Report patent. Such information is not generally 7 known and was never made public over the course of this litigation, and 8 disclosure of such information could cause Google competitive harm. 9
10 854-15 Excerpt of GRANTED. Google seeks to seal references to Bakewell Rebuttal lifetime value analyses for unaccused 11 Expert Report Google products that were never made public over the course of this litigation, 12 disclosure of which could cause Google competitive harm. 13
14 854-16 Excerpt of Chan GRANTED. Google seeks to seal references to the bill Deposition of materials for the Nest Mini and the 15 Transcript Nest Audio. Such information is not generally known and was never made 16 public over the course of this litigation, 17 and disclosure of such information could cause Google competitive harm. 18 854-17 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 854-10. Note that 19 Malackowski here Google did not even request to seal Supplemental the broad “loss leader” language that it 20 Expert Report requested to seal with submission of the 21 overlapping excerpt above.
22 854-18 Excerpt of GRANTED IN Google seeks to redact information Bakewell Rebuttal PART, regarding patent licenses it negotiated 23 Expert Report DENIED IN with non-parties from a table of contents. 24 PART. As set out above, these redactions should be streamlined to account for the limited 25 potential for harm and what is already public knowledge. See entry for Dkt. 26 No. 854-4.
27 854-19 Excerpt of GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 854-5. 1 Bakewell Rebuttal PART, 2 Expert Report DENIED IN PART. 3 854-20 Excerpt of GRANTED IN See entries for Dkt. Nos. 854-8, 854-10, Malackowski PART, 854-12. 4 Supplemental DENIED IN 5 Expert Report PART. 854-21 Excerpt of GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 854-5. 6 Bakewell Rebuttal PART, Expert Report DENIED IN 7 PART. 854-22 Exhibit 1 of DENIED. Google seeks to seal adjusted damages 8 Bakewell Rebuttal figures and has not sufficiently stated the Expert Report harm that would result from their 9 disclosure. Such figures are derived by 10 experts; they are not proprietary. What’s more, the updated damages figures for 11 the ’966 and ’885 patents that Google seeks to seal were already made part of 12 the public record. 13 854-23 Exhibit 4 of GRANTED. Google seeks to seal its internal 14 Bakewell Rebuttal information regarding the average daily Expert Report number of its speakers executing certain 15 commands related to grouping and the average daily number of connected 16 devices. As Google recognizes, although 17 the total weighted percentages of devices in groups were discussed during trial, the 18 data at issue here was not discussed at a granular level. 19 20 854-24 Google’s Response GRANTED. Google seeks to seal information to Request for regarding the amount of revenue IFTTT 21 Information received a result of sales on the Google Play store, the number of IFTTT 22 downloads, and the number of worldwide financial transactions associated with the 23 IFTTT app. Although the boilerplate line about providing competitors with 24 information that Google does not have 25 access to from competing platforms rings hollow here, this order agrees that 26 Google has an interest in protecting confidential financial and metrics data of 27 apps written by third parties and public disclosure of which could cause 1 Google (and IFTTT) harm. 2 854-25 Google’s Response GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-7. 3 to Sonos’s Request for Clarification 4 854-26 Sonos-Google GRANTED. Google seeks to seal a letter sent between Pre-Litigation the parties in pre-litigation licensing 5 Licensing negotiations, disclosure of which could 6 Negotiation cause the parties competitive harm, for Correspondence reasons already stated, in light of the 7 detailed discussion of proposed terms. See entry for Dkt. Nos. 831-7. 8 9 854-27 Proposed GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 831-4. Term Sheet 10 854-28 Sonos-Google GRANTED. See entry for. Dkt. No. 854-26. Pre-Litigation 11 Licensing Negotiation 12 Correspondence 13 854-29 Sonos-Google IP GRANTED Google seeks to seal language in a single Licensing AS slide of a Sonos slide deck from their 14 Discussion Slide AMENDED. pre-litigation licensing discussions, Deck (Sonos) which ostensibly “[c]ontains information 15 regarding Google’s patent licensing strategies” (Dkt. No. 854 at 39). Despite 16 this being a Sonos slide deck, Google 17 had been the one to designate it as confidential and originally sought to seal 18 it in its entirety (see Dkt. Nos. 704; 746). That said, later in this litigation, (and 19 after the jury returned a verdict against Google,) Google narrowed its sealing 20 request to redactions of this one slide 21 involving its own licensing strategies (see Dkt. Nos. 833-49, 854 at 39–40). 22 The Court suspects some gamesmanship 23 is at play here. It would be unfair to allow Google to seal its full pre-litigation 24 licensing discussion slide deck (see Dkt. 25 Nos. 854 at 40, 854-31) but to unseal Sonos’s — and to slip this change in 26 among thousands of pages of filings for renewed requests to seal that Google no 27 doubt expected Sonos would not review. narrowing of requests to seal, this was 1 certainly not the sort of narrowing 2 envisioned.
3 In the spirit of fairness, and with an eye to both parties’ concerns about 4 competitive harm flowing from disclosure of their pre-litigation licensing 5 negotiations, this order seals the Sonos 6 slide deck in its entirety, as well as the Google slide deck in its entirety (Dkt. 7 No. 854-31).
8 854-30 Google’s Response GRANTED. Google requests to seal statements to Sonos’s Request regarding a Google pre-litigation 9 re. No Longer licensing discussion presentation and the 10 Asserted Patents proposed term sheet, disclosure of which and Proffer of could cause competitive harm. See 11 Testimony entries for Dkt. Nos. 831-7, 854-29.
12 854-31 Sonos-Google IP GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 854-29. License Discussion 13 Slide Deck 14 (Google) 854-32 Excerpt of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 854-14. Note this 15 Malackowski Slide chart involving Pixel revenue data Deck appears on page 105 of Dkt. No. 854-14. 16
17 854-33 Excerpt of Pixel GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 854-32. Slide Deck 18 854-34 Ma Declaration in DENIED. Google seeks to seal a breakdown of the Support of number of accused instrumentalities for 19 Google’s the ’885 patent, which the jury found Opposition to infringed. Google suggests that this data 20 Sonos’s Motion for should be sealed because, although the 21 Injunctive Relief total number of accused instrumentalities was discussed at trial, the data was not 22 discussed at a granular level and broken down into different product categories in 23 this manner. But it should have been. The jury even requested a breakdown 24 beyond the total number of products 25 during deliberations (see Dkt. No. 773 at 3–4). Given that this information goes 26 to the heart of the matter litigated, the public has considerable interest in this 27 material that the broadly stated risk of I 854-35 | Excerpt from GRANTED IN_ | Google seeks to seal results of surveys Bakewell Rebuttal PART, that it administered related to its speaker 2 Expert Report DENIED IN products. Such results are internal, and PART. their disclosure could cause Google 3 competitive harm. The first sentence Google seeks to seal, however, is a 4 general statement that a Google witness 5 also made in his trial testimony (see Tr. 1516:10-15). As such, Google 6 should unseal this sentence in its entirety or redact just the words between “For 7 Google,” and “the focus was.” 8 9 The parties shall refile all documents in full compliance with this order no later than 10 May 3, 2024, at 12:00 P.M. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12
13 Dated: February 9, 2024. © 15 ~ LLIAM ALSUP a 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28