MARK A. KEARNEY, District Judge.
A pleading generally describing a license agreement is not "sealed" and precluded from public access in this Court simply because it discloses agreed business terms not known to the market. Sealing or redacting business terms from pleadings requires particularized allegations, often with sworn testimony, of the present harm from disclosure. Parties seeking to invoke the constitutional authority of federal courts must recognize the public trust placed in our judicial processes from a transparent deliberative process. We do not preclude public access to the facts underlying our Orders simply because businesspersons do not want their business dealings disclosed. We need much more. As confirmed in today's Order denying a motion to seal most of a proposed first amended complaint, we decline to block public access to a wide variety of plead general business terms from a 2013 license agreement between the defendant and a third party at issue in this case without particularized allegations of present (not stale) harm to future confidential business dealings when we have no evidence the proposed redactions of 2013 business terms involve trade secrets or private patent valuations, pricing, or licensing strategies in place today or at issue in upcoming business negotiations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. sues Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. for allegedly breaching contractual obligations owed to third-party beneficiaries under a 2013 contract/license between Inperium and Sony Corporation and Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. Samsung's claims arise from the May 2013 settlement of an earlier lawsuit filed by Imperium against Sony alleging infringement of five United States patents in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Based on a settlement, the Texas district court dismissed Imperium's complaint on May 10, 2013.
Imperium later sued Samsung in the same Texas district court for infringing three of the patents identified in the settlement license agreement with Sony. Following a February 2016 trial, the jury returned a verdict finding certain of the products infringed the patents involving Sony. Following trial, the district court ordered briefing on issues related to the Sony license agreement and Imperium moved for an ongoing royalty for the accused Samsung products and future products. This Texas case is ongoing.
Samsung then filed a complaint here as a third-party beneficiary of the Sony license agreement with Imperium seeking damages, declaratory relief and equitable relief. Samsung filed its initial complaint under seal and now moves to file a first amended complaint with redactions of varying lengths in 55 of the 79 allegations and in five of the nine requests for relief.
Samsung argues the 2013 settlement agreement must be maintained as confidential because Sony and Imperium agreed to keep their agreement confidential and Sony's future unidentified interests in license agreements are at stake. Samsung also cites Sony's "competitive interest" in finding similar business resolutions to future litigation. We lack evidence from Sony nor do we understand any of the redacted allegations as disclosing licensing strategies, pricing or patent valuations. Rather, Samsung seeks to redact general business terms and reaches as far as hoping to redact a venue selection clause.
Samsung seeks to seal dozens of allegations in a proposed first amended complaint without citing particularized harm. Its argument is conclusory: "[w]ere disclosure required, competitors and potential licensing targets would gain access to pricing, finances, patent valuation, and licensing strategies which could be used to undercut future licensing negotiations". . . "private [settlement] contract is highly confidential, contains sensitive business information belonging to [Defendant] and a third party to this action, and expressly prohibits unrestricted public disclosure of its terms."
The common law right of access to judicial proceedings and judicial records" is a right which our court of appeals holds is "`beyond dispute.'"
We have "supervisory power over [our] own records and files" and may deny access "where court files [may] become a vehicle for improper purposes."
We do not preclude public access absent particularized good cause. "Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity."
There is no basis to find impact on present negotiations or strategies. The proposed redactions involve a settlement of claims in 2013. Samsung's request reaches so far as seeking to redact venue selection.
Samsung's reliance on Mosaid Tech. Inc. v. LSI Corp. is misplaced.
"Documents containing trade secrets or other confidential business information may be protected from disclosure."
We do not extend a seal to protect stale information from public disclosure absent a specific explanation of harm resulting from such disclosure.
The parties present no particularized good cause for sealing other than claiming confidentiality simply because of a private agreement. The private agreement does not govern our obligation to ensure public access.
Samsung's reliance on LEAP Systems, Inc. v. Moneytrax, Inc. is misplaced. In LEAP Systems Inc., the court emphasized the settlement's confidentiality clause and concluded disclosure of the settlement terms would not promote fairness and efficiency because the settling parties relied upon
We need a clearly defined and serious injury with articulated reasoning to preclude public access. The parties have not met this standard. We have no basis to find disclosure of negotiated settlement terms from 2013 will harm future business negotiations.