Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`2021-1568 (LEAD), -1569, -1570, -1571, -1573
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant-Appellee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,
`Intervenor-Appellee
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
`Case Nos. 3:18-cv-00358-WHA, 3:18-cv-00360-WHA,
`3:18-cv-363-WHA, 3:18-cv-00365-WHA, 3:18-cv-00572-WHA
`before Judge William H. Alsup
`
`
`FIRST CORRECTED BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
`
`
`Aaron S. Jacobs
`Prince Lobel Tye LLP
`One International Place, Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 456-8000
`ajacobs@princelobel.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`April 2, 2021
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`FORM 9. Cer t ificat e of In te r est
`
`Form 9 (p. 1)
`July 2020
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`AMENDED
`CERTIFICATE OF IN TEREST
`
`Ca se Number 21-1568, -1569, -1570, -1 571 , -1 573
`Short Ca s e Caption Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
`
`Filing Party/Ent ity Uniloc U SA, Inc.; Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`Instruct ions: Complete each section of the form . In a n swering item s 2 a nd 3, be
`specific as to which r epresen ted en tit ies t h e a n swers apply; lack of specificity may
`result in non-complia n ce. Please e nter only one item per box; attach
`a ddit ional pages a s needed and chec k the relev ant box. Counsel must
`immediately file a n a m ended Cer t ificate of Inter est if information ch a n ges . Fed .
`Cir . R. 4 7.4 (b).
`
`I cer t ify t h e following inform ation a nd a ny attach ed sh eets are accu rate a nd
`complete to t h e best of my knowledge .
`
`Date: April 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`/s/ Aaron S. Jacobs
`
`Name:
`
`Aaron S. Jacobs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`Foml. 9 (p. i)
`July ~O!:O
`
`1. R c p r·c s cntcd
`.l.!:n t i t i<•s.
`F ed . Cir . 1{. 47.4(a)(l ).
`
`2. Hea l .Pai-ty in
`lntcr c~t.
`F ed . C.i.t:·. H. 47.4(a)(2) .
`
`3 . .Pan,n t Cor·p orat ion s
`and St ockho ld cr·s •
`F c,d . Cit·. H. 47.4(a)(0).
`
`Pt·o,,ide , he foil names cof
`:111 ont itios 1·op1'<'!son rnd
`by u nders1g11 f!cl cou nsel in
`Lhis CHS':!.
`
`Prcovid,;, the- full names of
`,111 w,n 1 p:ntio;, in in t nm;,t,
`for th e ent1,.ies. Do not.
`list. lhe renl pnr·t.i'.'>' if
`they iu·e lh e sa mr; as the
`enl,i tic::-.
`
`P rovide t he full n mnes cof
`:111 pa1·ont ,w rpm·,1t ion ;;
`for t he f!nt it.if's a nd all
`p ublid y held companies
`l hat. o,"'·n 10~•(, or mo1·~
`s lock in lht, en tit.it,~.
`
`□ Nnnc,/ No1 . ..:\ pp I ica I, le,
`
`□ Nn nc,i Nnl. Appl ic,i hie:
`
`Unilc,: I.I SA, i nc.
`
`llniloc. 2017 LLC
`
`Uu.iloc Co~·p<.:1·s.ttk,n 1-'ly, Lt1.l.
`
`lJnilm, L uxi,mlmu rg 8 .A.
`
`lJ11 ilnc 20 17 T.LC
`
`l\ont~
`
`□
`
`Ad<.Lt.ional 1x11,;t,s a U.acht•d
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`1-'onn !) (p. :l)
`.Ju ls 20:!(l
`
`4. Legal H.c prcscnt ativcs.
`1,i;;t, >1 11 lmv fo·ms, pal'tners, an<l a ssod ,:,t.c,s that(,:,)
`,1ppna1·nn fo1· th0. (mt iti ,1s in tlrn m1g1n:1t ing c,olll't. m· ,, gorH:y 01· (h) ,wo oxpocrnd t,o
`,1ppn31• in th is ,~om·t fo1· t ho om.it.ins. Dn not. ind udo t.hns,~ who havo ,1Jmacly
`nnrnl'Nl an :,ppnni·,rnr,c, in r.hi:< conn:. FNL Ci1· R.. 47.4(,1)(4).
`0
`
`Andit.ional p,1gn;; at.t,1<1h o<l
`
`□ Nm10J Not. Applk,1hln
`N f-lli-i:, , n umga rd u+!I' :\ ll, r i!.10 11. P.(;.
`
`F.clw,rr<l R. NeJ;;on, TH
`
`Anthor,y :\fH~h$1~} V~1~:11<1nP.
`
`Prince Lobel '!Yr, L LP
`
`Kevin Gannon
`
`'l'y r u,; C. C,u: t.wrigh~
`
`f),.r, ic,J ]'Vlc·.Oon;,gJc,
`
`Tln;t " n. Ro~l.uc:l<
`
`\ .f,.1.1.hc,w T>a vicl V,,J];,
`
`5. Related Cases. P r ovidr; t.hr; easr; ti tles and numbr,1·,; of any ens<,> known l,o t.,.,.
`pc>nding in this cour l or any o lh'.'r cotu:L or agency lhH L will dir'.'cr.ly alf<,cl or be
`dhecr.ly affr,r.u,d by r. his cotllt:s der.ision in t,he pc,nd ing nppeal. Do n nt. include t he
`(n•lgln.-1 tl ng t~~1se ntnnber(s) frn .. this c.a sP.. ~'ed. Ci-r. H ,fi A(a) (o). s~e nl sn F .. cl. Ch
`H. 4 7.6(b) .
`
`□ Non.,J Not. Applica ble
`
`0
`
`/\<ldit,ional pages flt.t ach,;<l
`
`6. Organ izat ional Victim.~ and llankruptcy Case,;. Pl'ovidt, any informa tion
`n ,q uired un<lel' Jt'cld. H. App. P. 2G. l (b) (or~aniza L.ional victims: in ci·iminnl cns.,,i,;)
`and 2G. l (c) (ba n krup tcy cw;,; debtors anti ~r usl.ees) . Fed. Cii'. lt. ,17.,1(a)((1) .
`IZl
`
`□ Addi t-ional µa~t,s a l lachc,d
`
`None/ Not Arn>li<cabk
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 5 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADDENDUM
`
`Legal Representatives (continued)
`
`4.
`
`
`Prince Lobel Tye LLP
`(continued):
`Paul J. Hayes
`
`5.
`
`Related Cases
`
`Michael James Ercolini
`
`Robert R. Gilman
`
`Brian A. Tollefson
`
`Tyrus S. Cartwright
`
`Pursuant to Uniloc’s unopposed Motion, see Appeal No. 21-1568, Dkt. No.
`
`14 (Motion), the present appeals were deconsolidated from Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
`
`Apple Inc., Appeal No. 21-1572, on February 25, 2021. See Appeal No. 21-1568,
`
`Dkt. No. 15 (Order). Although now-deconsolidated Appeal No. 21-1572 arises
`
`from the same underlying case as Appeal No. 21-1573, as described in Uniloc’s
`
`Motion, the issues, orders on appeal and interested parties in the present appeals
`
`are different from Appeal No. 21-1572.
`
`
`
`The following appeals, while perhaps not “related cases” within the meaning
`
`of this Court’s rules, were designated as companion cases to the deconsolidated
`
`Appeal No. 21-1572:
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility
`LLC, No. 21-1555 (Fed. Cir.)
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, Nos.
`21-4198, -1500, -1501, -1502, -1503,
`-1504, -1505, -1506, -1507, -1508, -
`1509 (Fed. Cir.) (consolidated)
`
`
`See Appeal No. 21-1568, Dkt. No. 15 (Order).
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 6 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`The following appeals, while perhaps not “related cases” within the meaning
`
`of this Court’s rules, arise from inter partes review proceedings involving some of
`
`the same patents asserted in these cases:
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v.
`Unified Patents, LLC,
`Nos. 20-1666, -1667
`(Fed. Cir.) (consolidated)
`Iancu v. Fall Line Patents,
`LLC, No. 20-853 (U.S.)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017
`LLC, Nos. 20-1575, -
`1638 (Fed. Cir)
`(consolidated)
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v.
`Apple Inc., No. 20-1228,
`-1229 (Fed. Cir.)
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple
`Inc., No. 20-1038 (Fed.
`Cir.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 7 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................................ i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. viii
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 7
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 8
`
`I.
`
`The -360 et seq. cases. ........................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The district court granted Uniloc’s motion to add Uniloc
`2017 to the cases and denied Apple’s motion to dismiss. .......... 9
`
`The parties submitted motions to seal third-party
`confidential information associated with Apple’s motions
`to dismiss. ..................................................................................10
`
`The district court denied the parties’ motions to seal and
`the district court and denied EFF’s motion to intervene. ..........11
`
`The district court denied Uniloc’s motion for leave to file
`a motion for reconsideration regarding the motions to
`seal and denied EFF’s second motion to intervene. .................11
`
`The few documents still at issue disclose more than 100
`third-parties’ confidential information. .....................................13
`
`This Court affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and
`remanded for further action. .....................................................15
`
`G. Uniloc and Fortress unsealed their information and
`Uniloc filed a motion asking the district court to seal the
`third-parties’ information. .........................................................16
`
`II.
`
`The -358 case. ......................................................................................17
`
`III. EFF moved to intervene, again. ..........................................................18
`
`IV. The district court denied the parties’ motions to seal the third-
`parties’ confidential information and permitted EFF to
`intervene in the cases below. ...............................................................19
`
`V.
`
`Subsequent sealing orders from the Northern District of
`California. ............................................................................................21
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 8 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`A. Uniloc v. Google: Judge Gonzalez Rogers of the
`Northern District of California sealed some of the same
`information on the same day. ....................................................21
`
`B.
`
`Finjan v. Juniper Network: The district court below cited
`its order in this case in another instance where it denied a
`motion to seal. ...........................................................................22
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................24
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................25
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Law ......................................................................................................25
`
`Standard of Review .............................................................................37
`
`III. Discussion ...........................................................................................38
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The district court erred on the law and facts. ............................39
`
`There are compelling reasons to redact the references to
`third-party licensees and their licensing information. ..............48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The Conformed Revenue Sharing and Note and
`Warrant Purchase Agreement should remain
`redacted. ..........................................................................48
`
`The excerpts of the Settlement and License
`Agreement between Microsoft and Uniloc should
`remain redacted. ..............................................................54
`
`Apple’s Reply Brief should remain redacted. ................55
`
`The Jacobs Revised Redactions Declaration should
`remain redacted. ..............................................................56
`
`The sealed declarations should remain under seal. ........57
`
`The Palmer deposition excerpts should remain
`redacted. ..........................................................................58
`
`C.
`
`There are compelling reasons to seal the Fortress
`Memorandum and redact Apple’s Motion to Dismiss in
`the -358 case. .............................................................................59
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................62
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................63
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................64
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 9 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Abbvie Inc. v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-cv-01815-EMC,
`Dkt. No. 64 (July 11, 2017) ..................................................................................30
`Am. Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.,
`828 F.2d 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................28
`Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,
`658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................27
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`727 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................ 23, 28, 37
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK,
`2012 WL 3283478 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) .......................................................32
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK,
`2012 WL 4933287 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012) .......................................................30
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK,
`2012 WL 5988570 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2012) .....................................................30
`Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 5:16-cv-00923-BLF,
`2018 WL 2010622 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018) ............................................... 29, 60
`Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co.,
`440 U.S. 257 (1979) ..............................................................................................27
`Autodesk, Inc. v. Alter,
`No. 3:16-cv-04722-WHO,
`Dkt. No. 174 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2018) ................................................................33
`Autodesk, Inc. v. Alter,
`No. 3:16-cv-04722-WHO,
`Dkt. No. 108 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017) .................................................................33
`Big Baboon, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`No. 4:17-cv-02082-HSG,
`2019 WL 1791421 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) ......................................................31
`Bluestone Innovations LLC v. Nichia Corp.,
`No. 3:12-cv-00059-SI,
`Dkt. No. 285 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) ...............................................................32
`Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC,
`809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 25, 26, 60
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 10 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`ChriMar Sys. Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`No. 4:13-cv-01300-JSW,
`Dkt. No. 413 (Aug. 12, 2016) ...............................................................................33
`Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`No. 4:12-cv-01971-CW,
`2014 WL 6986068 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014) ......................................................33
`Dodocase VR, Inc. v. MerchSource, LLC,
`No. 3:17-cv-07088-AGT,
`2018 WL 5619799 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2018) ......................................................32
`Droplets, Inc. v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`No. 4:12-cv-03733-JST,
`Dkt. No. 638 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021) ................................................................33
`Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton,
`626 F.3d 462 (9th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 38, 43
`Finjan v. Blue Coat Sys., LLC,
`No. 5:15-cv-03295-BLF,
`Dkt. No. 398 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2017) ................................................................31
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.,
`826 F. App’x 928 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................23
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-05659-WHA,
`Dkt. No. 656 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021) ................................................................22
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA (TSH),
`Dkt. No. 570 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2019) ..................................................................32
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA,
`Dkt. No. 485 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2019) .................................................. 35, 51, 52
`Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) ...............................................................................37
`Hagestad v. Tragesser,
`49 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................26
`Huawei Techs., Co, Ltd v. Samsung Elecs. Co, Ltd.,
`340 F. Supp. 3d 934 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ..................................................................49
`Huawei Techs., Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO,
`2018 WL 1784065 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018) ......................................................33
`Icon-IP Pty Ltd. v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc.,
`No. 4:12-cv-3844-JST,
`Dkt. No. 217 (Mar. 4, 2015) .................................................................................33
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 11 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`In re Casewell,
`18 R.I. 835, 29 A. 259 (1893) ...............................................................................26
`In re Elec. Arts, Inc.,
`298 Fed. App’x 568 (9th Cir. 2008).............................................................. passim
`In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litig.,
`No. 4:18-cv-01885-HSG,
`2020 WL 1865294 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020) ............................................... 31, 59
`In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig.,
`686 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................37
`In re Qualcomm Litig.,
`No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD,
`2017 WL 5176922 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) ................................................. 22, 31
`Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc.,
`No. 3:18-cv-02848-WHO,
`2021 WL 783560 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021) ..........................................................33
`Juicero, Inc. v. iTaste Co.,
`No. 5:17-cv-01921-BLF,
`2017 WL 8294276 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2017) ................................................ 29, 60
`Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,
`447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................ 27, 60
`McDonnell v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
`292 F. App’x 679 (9th Cir. 2008) .........................................................................29
`Microsoft Corp. v. Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co.,
`No. 5:19-cv-01279-LHK,
`2020 WL 4901610 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2020) .....................................................54
`Nixon v. Warner Commnc’ns, Inc.,
`435 U.S. 589 (1978) ................................................................................. 25, 26, 27
`North Atl. Instruments, Inc. v. Haber,
`188 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................28
`Oliner v. Kontrabecki,
`745 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................. 7
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA,
`Dkt. No. 687 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2012) ........................................................ passim
`PersonalWeb Techs LLC v. IBM Corp.,
`No. 5:16-cv-01226-EJD,
`Dkt. No. 347 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2017) ................................................................31
`Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) ...............................................................................26
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 12 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,
`605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................26
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`No. 3:09-cv-01714-WHA,
`Dkt. No. 295 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013) .......................................................... 37, 51
`Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.,
`No. 4:17-cv-04405-HSG,
`2020 WL 1233881 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020) ......................................................31
`Powertech Tech., Inc., v. Tessera, Inc.,
`No. 4:11-cv-06121-CW,
`2012 WL 1969039 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2012) ......................................................34
`Rembrandt Patent Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 3:14-cv-05094 WHA,
`Dkt. No. 144 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) .................................................. 37, 51, 59
`Rodman v. Safeway, Inc.,
`No. 3:11-cv-03003-JST,
`2014 WL 12787874 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014) ...................................................29
`Smith v. Jackson,
`84 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................38
`SmugMug, Inc. v. Virtual Photo Store LLC,
`No. 4:09-cv-02255 CW (JCS),
`Dkt. No. 69 (Nov. 6, 2009) ...................................................................................33
`Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`No. 4:17-cv-04426-JST,
`Dkt. No. 356 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019) ................................................................33
`Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc.,
`No. 4:16-cv-00119-HSG,
`2018 WL 6002319 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2018) .....................................................31
`Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. 4:05-cv-04063-CW
`Dkt. No. 1036 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) .............................................................34
`Transperfect Global, Inc. v. MotionPoint Corp.,
`No. 4:10-cv-02590-CW,
`2014 WL 4950082 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) .............................................. 29, 60
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`964 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...........................................................................4, 7
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___,
`No. 4:20-cv-04355-YGR,
`2020 WL 7626430 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2020) ........................................... 5, 22, 32
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 13 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`784 F. App’x 763 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................................................... 4
`United States v. Amodeo,
`71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir.1995) ...................................................................................26
`Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski,
`No. 19-968,
`___ S. Ct. ___, 2021 WL 850106 (U.S. Mar. 8, 2021) .........................................40
`Van v. Language Line Servs., Inc.,
`No. 5:14-cv-03791-LHK,
`2016 WL 3566980 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2016) .........................................................29
`Verinata Health, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`No. 3:12-cv-00865 SI,
`2014 WL 12789020 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2014) .....................................................32
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR,
`Dkt. No. 216 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019) ...............................................................32
`X One Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 5:16-cv-06050-LHK (SVK),
`Dkt. No. 243 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2019) .................................................................32
`
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 7
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 7
`28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) .................................................................................................... 7
`28 U.S.C. § 1367 ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`Rules
`Local Rule 79-5(d)(1) ....................................................................................... 14, 35
`Local Rule 79-5(e)(1)........................................................................................ 11, 43
`
`Other
`Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b (1939) ..............................................................28
`U.S. Const., Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 8 ..............................................................................40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 14 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`This is a collateral appeal regarding the district court’s refusal to seal third-
`
`party confidential information arising out of five patent-infringement actions
`
`between (mostly) the same parties:
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:18-cv-00358-WHA (N.D.
`Cal.)
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:18-cv-00360, -00363,
`-00365 & -00572-WHA (N.D. Cal.)1
`
`Appellants Uniloc USA, Inc. (“Uniloc USA”) and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`(“Uniloc LUX”) are the plaintiffs in the -358 case. Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc
`
`2017”), Uniloc USA and Uniloc LUX (collectively “Uniloc”) are the plaintiffs in
`
`the -360, -363, -365 and -572 cases (“-360 et seq. cases”).2 Appellee Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) is the defendant in all cases. Third-party Electronic Frontier Foundation
`
`(“EFF”) is an intervenor in all cases.
`
`The -360, -365 and -572 cases are stayed due to instituted inter partes
`
`reviews. Uniloc moved to dismiss without prejudice the -363 case on September 5,
`
`
`1
`Cases will be referred to by their non-zero digits, e.g., “the -360 case.” All
`relevant pleadings in the -360, -363, -365 and -572 cases were filed in parallel. To
`avoid quadruplicate entries in the Joint Appendix, all items from the record below
`for these cases are from the docket of the -360 case, unless otherwise noted. The
`-358 case is an exception, as it took a different path.
`
`2
`The district court allowed Uniloc 2017 to joint as plaintiff in the -360 et seq.
`cases. Appx674. Uniloc 2017 subsequently moved to join the -358 case, but the
`motion was denied. Appx903.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 15 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`2018, which motion was granted on August 7, 2019; the to-be-sealed documents in
`
`the -363 case were filed between those dates.
`
`The -358 case was dismissed on December 4, 2020. The substance of that
`
`dismissal is on appeal to this Court in Appeal No. 2021-1572. The -1572 appeal
`
`was briefly related to the instant appeals, see -1568 Appeal, Order (Feb. 1, 2021),
`
`but the Court deconsolidated the -1572 appeal pursuant to Uniloc’s unopposed
`
`motion, see id., Dkt. No. 15 (Feb. 25, 2021).
`
`Some of the same to-be-sealed information at issue here was also submitted
`
`in eleven cases between Uniloc 2017 and Google LLC (“Google”): Uniloc 2017
`
`LLC v. Google LLC, Nos. 4:20-cv-04355, -05330, -05333, -05334, -05339, -05341,
`
`-05342, -05343, -05344, -05345 & -05346-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (collectively “the
`
`Google cases”). The information was ordered sealed in the Google cases. Those
`
`cases were dismissed on December 22, 2020. The substance of those dismissals is
`
`on appeal to this Court in Appeal Nos. 2021-1498, -1500, 1501, -1502, -1503,
`
`-1504, -1505, 1506, -1507, -1508 & -1509.
`
`Some of the same to-be-sealed information at issue here was also submitted
`
`in a case brought by Uniloc USA and Uniloc LUX against Motorola Mobility,
`
`LLC (“Motorola”): Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, C.A. No. 17-
`
`1658 (CFC) (D. Del.). The relevant information remains under seal in the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 16 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`Motorola case. The Motorola case was dismissed on December 30, 2020. The
`
`substance of that dismissal is on appeal to this Court in Appeal No. 2021-1555.
`
`The following table lays out the cases and appeals, and how they are related:
`
`Uniloc(s) Defendant Appeal
`Case
`-358 (N.D. Cal.) USA, LUX Apple
`-1572
`-1573
`-1568
`
`-360 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Apple
`
`-363 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Apple
`
`-365 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`-572 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Apple
`
`Apple
`
`2017, USA,
`LUX
`2017, USA,
`LUX
`2017, USA,
`LUX
`2017, USA,
`LUX
`Google
`-4355 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`Google
`-5330 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`Google
`-5333 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`Google
`-5334 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`Google
`-5339 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`Google
`-5341 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`Google
`-5342 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`Google
`-5343 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`Google
`-5344 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`Google
`-5345 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`Google
`-5346 (N.D. Cal.) 2017
`-1658 (D. Del.)
`USA, LUX Motorola
`
`Subject Matter
`Standing
`Sealing (present appeal)
`
`Sealing (present appeal)
`
`Standing
`
`Standing
`
`-1569
`
`-1570
`
`-1571
`
`-1498
`-1500
`-1501
`-1502
`-1503
`-1504
`-1505
`-1506
`-1507
`-1508
`-1509
`-1555
`
`
`
`This Court’s determination of the present appeals should not impact the
`
`outcome of the -1572 appeal, the -1498 et al. appeals or the -1555 appeal, and vice
`
`versa. The Court’s determination will, however, influence whether the materials
`
`filed in the underlying cases remain under seal.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 17 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`STATEMENT OF PRIOR APPEALS
`
`Some of the same issues were raised in a prior appeal of in the -360 et seq.
`
`cases in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., 964 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See
`
`Appx484-504. In that opinion, this Court affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and
`
`remanded for further consideration of the to-be-sealed information. After further
`
`briefing, the district court below issued an order, Appx30-36, which forms the
`
`basis for the current collateral appeals.
`
`The -358 case was separately appealed to this Court following dismissal on
`
`Section 101 grounds in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 784 F. App’x 763 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2019). See Appx476-483. This Court vacated and remanded for further
`
`consideration of standing issues which are not (directly) relevant to the current
`
`collateral appeals. Instead, these collateral appeals relate to whether the third-party
`
`licensing information filed in conjunction with the standing motions in all of the
`
`cases will remain under seal.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`This appeal relates to narrowly tailored redactions covering confidential
`
`business and patent-licensing information of more than 100 third-parties. On
`
`December 22, 2020, Judge Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California
`
`issued an order sealing much of this information:
`
`Uniloc 2017 seeks to seal portions of two exhibits that identify third-
`party licensees and the amounts they paid for each license, as well as
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 18 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`their confidential payment information. Pricing terms and
`confidential financial information are routinely sealed as materials
`that may be used to harass or harm a party’s competitive standing.
`The requests are narrowly tailored and do not prevent the public from
`understanding the issues in this motion. Accordingly, Uniloc 2017’s
`motion seal is GRANTED.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 4:20-cv-04355-YGR,
`
`2020 WL 7626430, at *13 n.23 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2020) (citation omitted).
`
`However, this is not the order on appeal.
`
`Instead, earlier on December 22, 2020—literally the same day—Judge Alsup
`
`of the Northern District of California refused to seal some of the same documents
`
`and information, despite identical arguments presented to both judges of the same
`
`court:
`
`This order addresses the sealing of evidence submitted in a patent
`infringement suit. Accepting that several courts of appeal have held
`certain licensing and financial records sealable at times, on the record
`provided, the sealing motions are DENIED.
`
`Appx30. This is the order on appeal.
`
`The disparate treatment was even noted in the press, such as by Docket
`
`Navigator, which included squibs of the contradicting orders at the top its Patent
`
`Docket Report for December 28, 2020:
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1568 Document: 23 Page: 19 Filed: 04/02/2021
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Subject:
`
`docketreport@docketnavigator.com
`Monday, December 28, 2020 7:00 AM
`Jacobs, Aa ron
`Patent Docket Report for Dece mber 28, 2020
`
`Docket Report
`
`Patent Report
`December 28, 2020
`Identity of Third-Party Patent Licensees and Financial Detai ls of the Licenses Should be
`Sealed
`The court granted plaintiff's motion to seal portions of two exhibits that contained its licensi ng and financial
`information . " [Plaintiff] seeks to seal portions of two exhibits that identify third-party licensees and the amounts
`they paid for each license, as well as their confidential payment information . Pricing terms and confidential
`financial information are routinely sealed as materials that may be used to harass or harm a party's competitive
`standing . The req uests are narrowly tai lored and do not prevent the public from understanding the issues in th is
`motion."
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC, 4-20-cv-04355 (NDCA 2020-12-22, Ord er) (Yvon ne Gonzalez Rogers)
`
`Read Order
`
`Docket Sheet
`
`Identity of Thi rd-Party Patent Licensees and Financial Details of the Licenses Should
`Not be Sealed
`On remand , the court again denied pl