Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
727 F.3d 1214
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Apple and Samsung appeal district court orders denying sealing of confidential exhibits tied to pre-trial and post-trial motions in Apple v. Samsung; the August Order addressed pre-trial motions, the November Order addressed post-trial motions, and both orders were stayed pending appeal.
- Trial occurred July 30–August 24, 2012; the jury largely favored Apple with over $1 billion in damages.
- Public and media interest in the case was high; the district court initially promised an open trial and provided the press with daily trial exhibits.
- Reuters intervened and Amici Curiae (including the First Amendment Coalition and the Reporters Committee) sought to participate, but the coalition’s intervention was denied while amicus briefs were permitted.
- The court concludes the district court abused its discretion by unsealing certain confidential materials and remands for reconsideration, applying correct standards of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is proper under collateral order doctrine. | Apple/Samsung contend collateral order review applies. | Apple/Samsung assert finality via collateral order. | Yes; collateral order jurisdiction exists. |
| Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard for sealing non-dispositive motions. | District court erred by applying compelling reasons to non-dispositive motions. | District court could rely on compelling reasons in non-dispositive context in some cases. | District court erred; use of compelling reasons was inappropriate. |
| Whether the district court abused by unsealing 26 pre-trial documents containing detailed financial information. | Secrecy protects competitive harm; documents are trade secrets or protectable confidential information. | Public has significant interest; information necessary for understanding damages. | Abused discretion; those documents should have remained sealed for the specific items challenged. |
| Whether the district court abused by unsealing nine Apple market research reports attached to Samsung’s post-trial filing. | Market research contains unique, non-replicable data that would harm Apple's competitive position if disclosed. | Public interest justifies disclosure; data not central to the trial outcome. | Abused discretion; market research reports should be sealed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 F.2d 589 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (public access balanced against trade secrets and business information)
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (strong presumption of public access to court records; compelling reasons standard)
- In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (good cause vs. compelling reasons for sealing; non-dispositive context caveat)
- In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (applies generally to sealing; circuit context for non-patent issues)
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (Supreme Court 1978) (conceptual basis for finality and reviewability rules)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. Supreme Court 1949) (collateral order doctrine framework; immediate appealability when rights would be irreparably lost)