In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 18-cv-01885-HSG
LITIGATION
8 ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
9 This Document Relates To: Re: Dkt. Nos. 500, 538, 558, 568 10
ALL ACTIONS
11
12 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. Three 13 of these motions are in connection to the parties’ briefing on Philips’ motion for leave to amend 14 infringement contentions, Dkt. Nos. 538, 558, 568, and one is in connection with ASUS’ motion 15 to strike, Dkt. No. 500.1 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions to 16 file under seal, as described below. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and…