Case 1:19-cv-00807-LPS Document 1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORP.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SIGNIFY N.V. (F/K/A PHILIPS
`LIGHTING N.V.) & SIGNIFY NORTH
`AMERICA CORPORATION (F/K/A
`PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA
`CORPORATION)
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`CA No. _____________
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`PLAINTIFF LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORP.’S
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND
`RELATED DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, Plaintiff Lighting Science Group Corp.
`
`(“LSG”) hereby moves for an Order permitting the filing of its complaint under seal. LSG
`
`respectfully moves the Court for leave to file its complaint under seal to protect its confidential
`
`and proprietary information, including LSG’s confidential reverse engineering analyses, and
`
`resulting infringement contentions from disclosure.
`
`LSG has also included redacted versions of its Complaint. The redacted version of the
`
`Complaint and related papers satisfies the intention of the open court system, while protecting
`
`LSG’s privacy interests. If left unsealed, public access to LSG’s confidential information could
`
`hamper LSG’s ability to control the use of its costly, proprietary engineering analyses of the
`
`accused products, and inhibit LSG’s ability to enforce its patent rights against third parties,
`
`pursue licensing discussions, and/or negotiate open exchange of information with third parties to
`
`determine whether they have used or would be interested in using LSG’s patented technology.
`
`{01444386;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00807-LPS Document 1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`“Good cause [to seal records] is established on a showing that disclosure will work a
`
`clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure." Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen,
`
`733 F.2d 1059, 1069- 70 (3d Cir. 1984) (citations omitted). The Third Circuit has identified a
`
`non-exhaustive list of factors to balance when evaluating whether documents should be sealed.
`
`Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F .3d 772, 787-91 (3d Cir. 1994).
`
`Under the first Pansy factor, disclosure will violate LSG’s established privacy interests in
`
`its claim charts. A patent owner has a legitimate interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its
`
`infringement contentions or claim charts for all of these reasons. See, e.g., In re TR Labs Patent
`
`Litig., No. CIV.A. 09-3883 PGS, 2014 WL 3501050, at *2 (D.N.J. July 14, 2014) (declining to
`
`specifically reference infringement contentions as they had been filed under seal); ExitExchange
`
`Corp. v. Casale Media Inc., No. 2:10-CV-297, 2012 WL 996960, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23,
`
`2012) (affirming the confidentiality of infringement contentions by denying motion to unseal
`
`infringement contentions); Word to Info Inc v. Google Inc., No. 15-CV-03486-WHO, 2016 WL
`
`3648605, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2016).
`
`The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Pansy factors are either neutral, or
`
`weigh in favor of sealing LSG’s records. Under the second factor, LSG cannot identify a
`
`legitimate purpose Defendants might propose for the Confidential Exhibits to be unsealed. It is
`
`not anticipated that Defendants will oppose this motion, as they already have access to the
`
`Confidential Exhibits. Under the third factor, disclosure will not cause embarrassment to a party.
`
`The information is not important to public health and safety, under the fourth Pansy factor. The
`
`information is already shared between litigants, thus unsealing the exhibits will not promote
`
`fairness and efficiency in accordance with the fifth factor. Finally, under the sixth factor, the
`
`party benefitting from the order to seal the documents—LSG—is not a public entity or official.
`
`{01444386;v1 }
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00807-LPS Document 1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`Because the balance of the Pansy factors weighs in favor of protecting LSG’s rights in
`
`the confidentiality of its claim charts, and because LSG has tendered redacted versions of its
`
`Complaint and related papers with this request to otherwise effectuate the goals of the open court
`
`doctrine, LSG respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to seal the Complaint and
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`
`/s/ Andrew C. Mayo
`_____________________________
`John G. Day (#2403)
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`jday@ashbygeddes.com
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Lighting Science Group Corp.
`
`related papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Bradley W. Caldwell
`John Austin Curry
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Justin T. Nemunaitis
`Hamad M. Hamad
`Daniel R. Pearson
`Alexis F. Mosser
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY PC
`2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`(214) 888-4848
`
`Kayvan B. Noroozi
`Joel P. Stonedale
`James A. Milkey
`Karly Valenzuela
`NOROOZI PC
`11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2170
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`(310) 975-7074
`
`Dated: May 1, 2019
`
`
`
`{01444386;v1 }
`
`
`-3-
`
`