Public Has Minimal Interest In Parties’ Confidential Information Not Central To A Decision On The Merits And Not Necessary To The Public’s Understanding Of The Case

In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Nos. 12-1600, -1606, 13-1146 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2013), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded because the district court abused its discretion in refusing to seal the confidential information at issue in the appeals.

Apple Inc. ("Apple") sued Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively "Samsung"), asserting, among other claims, that Samsung's smartphones and tablets infringed several of Apple's patents and infringed Apple's trade dress embodied in its iPhone and iPad products. Samsung filed counterclaims, alleging that the iPhone and iPad infringed several of Samsung's patents. The case proceeded to a jury trial. The trial drew an extraordinary amount of attention from the public and the media. Consistent with the extraordinary level of interest in the case, the district court explained to the parties that the whole trial was going to be open. Consequently, the district court agreed to seal only a small number of trial exhibits. Similarly, most exhibits attached to pretrial and post-trial motions were ordered unsealed.

The parties did not challenge many of the district court's unsealing orders on appeal. Rather, the parties limited their appeals to a small subset of exhibits attached to pretrial and post-trial motions filed by Apple and Samsung. First, the parties challenged the district court's August Order, which contained its rulings with respect to pretrial motions. Second, Apple challenged the November Order, which contained the district court's rulings with respect to post-trial motions.

"We recognize the importance of protecting the public's interest in judicial proceedings and of facilitating its understanding of those proceedings. That interest, however, does not extend to mere curiosity about the parties' confidential information where that information is not central to a decision on the merits. While protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest." Slip op. at 24.

The Federal Circuit explained that the broad issue on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering the unsealing of the documents Apple and Samsung sought to seal. The Court began its analysis by reviewing "the common law right of access to judicial records." Slip op...