{"cached_at":"2026-11-08T11:53:48.656947+00:00","cl_docket_id":"6309622","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","id":6309622,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/","court_id":"cand","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/fjc-integrated-database/24962368/","date_created":"2018-11-21T10:36:52.095518-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-28T07:34:41.594397-08:00","dataset_source":9,"office":"3","docket_number":"1800358","origin":5,"date_filed":"2018-01-17","jurisdiction":3,"nature_of_suit":830,"title":"35","section":"0271","subsection":"","diversity_of_residence":null,"class_action":null,"monetary_demand":0,"county_of_residence":88888,"arbitration_at_filing":"","arbitration_at_termination":"","multidistrict_litigation_docket_number":"","plaintiff":"UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL","defendant":"APPLE, INC.","date_transfer":null,"transfer_office":"","transfer_docket_number":"","transfer_origin":"","date_terminated":"2018-05-18","termination_class_action_status":null,"procedural_progress":5,"disposition":6,"nature_of_judgement":0,"amount_received":0,"judgment":2,"pro_se":0,"year_of_tape":2018,"nature_of_offense":"","version":null,"circuit":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/ca9/","district":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/"},"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9596288/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9599430/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9599600/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9596284/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9598831/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/89/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9093/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/6309622/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc/","date_created":"2018-02-19T14:01:31.613182-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-05T15:02:49.172294-07:00","source":9,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"William Alsup","referred_to_str":"Donna M. Ryu","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-06-05T10:35:33.119497-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2018-01-17","date_terminated":"2020-12-10","date_last_filing":"2022-05-12","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc","docket_number":"3:18-cv-00358","docket_number_core":"1800358","docket_number_raw":"3:18-cv-00358","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"321469","cause":"35:271 Patent Infringement","nature_of_suit":"830 Patent","jury_demand":"Both","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.321469/gov.uscourts.cand.321469.docket.json","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2018-09-30T00:00:00-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1314/"],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12128683/","id":12128683,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8089210/","attorney_id":8089210,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8089210/","attorney_id":8089210,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"name":"Intervenor","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2022-12-03T16:06:18.035108-08:00","date_modified":"2022-12-03T16:06:18.035133-08:00","name":"Electronic Frontier Foundation","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9826930/","id":9826930,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478919/","attorney_id":6478919,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478919/","attorney_id":6478919,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478920/","attorney_id":6478920,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478920/","attorney_id":6478920,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478921/","attorney_id":6478921,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478921/","attorney_id":6478921,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478921/","attorney_id":6478921,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478922/","attorney_id":6478922,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478922/","attorney_id":6478922,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478923/","attorney_id":6478923,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478923/","attorney_id":6478923,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478924/","attorney_id":6478924,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":8},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478924/","attorney_id":6478924,"date_action":"2018-02-06","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478924/","attorney_id":6478924,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478925/","attorney_id":6478925,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478926/","attorney_id":6478926,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478927/","attorney_id":6478927,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8089209/","attorney_id":8089209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478928/","attorney_id":6478928,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-08-12T18:08:37.675029-07:00","date_modified":"2020-08-12T18:08:37.675077-07:00","name":"Apple, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9826929/","id":9826929,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478906/","attorney_id":6478906,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478906/","attorney_id":6478906,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478907/","attorney_id":6478907,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478908/","attorney_id":6478908,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478908/","attorney_id":6478908,"date_action":"2018-02-05","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478909/","attorney_id":6478909,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478910/","attorney_id":6478910,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478910/","attorney_id":6478910,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478911/","attorney_id":6478911,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478911/","attorney_id":6478911,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478912/","attorney_id":6478912,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478913/","attorney_id":6478913,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478914/","attorney_id":6478914,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478915/","attorney_id":6478915,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478916/","attorney_id":6478916,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478917/","attorney_id":6478917,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478918/","attorney_id":6478918,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478918/","attorney_id":6478918,"date_action":"2018-02-05","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-08-12T18:08:37.475083-07:00","date_modified":"2020-08-12T18:08:37.475111-07:00","name":"UNILOC Luxembourg S.A.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9826928/","id":9826928,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478906/","attorney_id":6478906,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478906/","attorney_id":6478906,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478907/","attorney_id":6478907,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478908/","attorney_id":6478908,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478908/","attorney_id":6478908,"date_action":"2018-02-05","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478909/","attorney_id":6478909,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478910/","attorney_id":6478910,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478910/","attorney_id":6478910,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478911/","attorney_id":6478911,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478911/","attorney_id":6478911,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478912/","attorney_id":6478912,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478913/","attorney_id":6478913,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478914/","attorney_id":6478914,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478915/","attorney_id":6478915,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478916/","attorney_id":6478916,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478917/","attorney_id":6478917,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478918/","attorney_id":6478918,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6478918/","attorney_id":6478918,"date_action":"2018-02-05","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","docket_id":6309622,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-08-12T18:08:37.222801-07:00","date_modified":"2020-08-12T18:08:37.222829-07:00","name":"Uniloc USA, Inc.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/358065835/","id":358065835,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/364612500/","id":364612500,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.646087-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.646095-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice AND ~Util - Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.618774-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.618777-07:00","date_filed":"2018-04-19","time_filed":"11:57:17","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-04-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/358065820/","id":358065820,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/364612485/","id":364612485,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.643965-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.643974-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings No NEF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.618235-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.618242-07:00","date_filed":"2018-04-19","time_filed":"12:06:06","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-04-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/358065808/","id":358065808,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/364612473/","id":364612473,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.643027-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.643030-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings No NEF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.617788-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.617795-07:00","date_filed":"2018-04-19","time_filed":"12:09:30","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-04-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/358065806/","id":358065806,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/364612471/","id":364612471,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.642948-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.642952-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings No NEF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.617719-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-09T03:56:16.617725-07:00","date_filed":"2018-04-19","time_filed":"12:10:33","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-04-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/354024708/","id":354024708,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/360516259/","id":360516259,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-07-05T14:49:36.809364-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-05T14:49:36.809368-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-05T14:49:36.783262-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-05T14:49:36.783266-07:00","date_filed":"2018-03-08","time_filed":"17:05:17","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-03-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/353395487/","id":353395487,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/359878067/","id":359878067,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-07-05T02:18:53.766517-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-05T02:18:53.766521-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"~Util - Create Case Relationship","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-05T02:18:53.750199-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-05T02:18:53.750214-07:00","date_filed":"2018-03-02","time_filed":"10:16:22","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-03-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/353395470/","id":353395470,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/359878050/","id":359878050,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-07-05T02:18:53.765344-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-05T02:18:53.765348-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-05T02:18:53.749846-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-05T02:18:53.749852-07:00","date_filed":"2018-03-02","time_filed":"10:30:32","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-03-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/350269287/","id":350269287,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/356708517/","id":356708517,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-07-02T07:33:23.013302-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-02T07:33:23.013306-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice of Impending Reassignment - Text Only","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-02T07:33:22.993345-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-02T07:33:22.993352-07:00","date_filed":"2018-01-25","time_filed":"14:13:02","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-01-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/349909888/","id":349909888,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/356348963/","id":356348963,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-07-01T23:24:35.151486-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-01T23:24:35.151490-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-01T23:24:35.136438-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-01T23:24:35.136442-07:00","date_filed":"2018-01-22","time_filed":"11:29:50","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-01-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/349553313/","id":349553313,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/355992251/","id":355992251,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-07-01T16:39:31.078120-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-01T16:39:31.078126-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-01T16:39:31.074990-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-01T16:39:31.074996-07:00","date_filed":"2018-01-17","time_filed":"22:41:49","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-01-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/195036900/","id":195036900,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/200690723/","id":200690723,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6309622/204/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc/","date_created":"2022-05-12T21:07:46.323697-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:39.416861-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"204","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-05-12T21:07:46.309445-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:39.402629-07:00","date_filed":"2022-05-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":204,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup:Status Conference held on 5/12/2022. Court directed plaintiff and defendant to file single joint supplemental brief (up to 25 pages) by 5/26/2022; Intervenor may file a supplemental brief (up to 30 pages) by 6/9/2022; plaintiff and defendant's reply brief (up to 10 pages) due by 6/16/2022; hearing to be set on 7/14/2022. In light of recent events, Court will apply Federal Circuit's instruction, as further stated on the record.Total Time in Court: 11:00 - 11:18 = 18 Minutes. Court Reporter: Joan Columbini. Plaintiff Attorney: Aaron Jacobs. Defendant Attorney: Douglas Winnard. Intervenor Attorneys: Alex Moss, Aaron Mackey. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (afm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/12/2022) Modified on 5/29/2022 (afm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/195013808/","id":195013808,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/200667123/","id":200667123,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2022-05-12T14:05:09.129546-07:00","date_modified":"2022-05-12T14:05:09.135373-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Status Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-05-12T14:05:09.119644-07:00","date_modified":"2022-05-12T14:05:09.119704-07:00","date_filed":"2022-05-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-05-12T20:37:19+00:00.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/193955115/","id":193955115,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/199588192/","id":199588192,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6309622/203/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc/","date_created":"2022-04-29T14:05:16.323859-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:39.390290-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"203","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035021876997","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"USCA Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-04-29T14:05:16.315626-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:39.380621-07:00","date_filed":"2022-04-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":203,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-04-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":651,"description":"ORDER of USCA for the Federal Circuit as to 194 Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit filed by UNILOC Luxembourg S.A., Uniloc USA, Inc. (anj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2022) (Entered: 04/29/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/187086941/","id":187086941,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/192617730/","id":192617730,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6309622/201/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc/","date_created":"2022-02-09T09:32:06.500210-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:39.350400-07:00","sha1":"0dbbf3c662ebbd210d70b50cf29fea5124383c2c","page_count":14,"file_size":144775,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.321469/gov.uscourts.cand.321469.201.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.321469/gov.uscourts.cand.321469.201.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 14\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\n\n UNILOC 2017 LLC,\n Plaintiff\n\n v.\n\n APPLE INC.,\n Defendant-Appellee\n\n ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,\n Intervenor-Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2021-1568, 2021-1569, 2021-1570, 2021-1571, 2021-1573\n ______________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of California in Nos. 3:18-cv-00358-\n WHA, 3:18-cv-00360-WHA, 3:18-cv-00363-WHA, 3:18-cv-\n 00365-WHA, 3:18-cv-00572-WHA, Judge William H.\n Alsup.\n ______________________\n\n Decided: February 9, 2022\n ______________________\n\n AARON JACOBS, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA, ar-\n gued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by JAMES\n J. FOSTER.\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 2 UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC.\n\n\n\n DOUG J. WINNARD, Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan\n & Baum LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellee.\n Also represented by ALAN ERNST LITTMANN, MICHAEL T.\n PIEJA; CATHERINE CARROLL, DAVID P YIN, Wilmer Cutler\n Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC; MARK D.\n SELWYN, THOMAS GREGORY SPRANKLING, Palo Alto, CA.\n\n ALEXANDRA HELEN MOSS, Electronic Frontier Founda-\n tion, San Francisco, CA, argued for intervenor-appellee.\n Also represented by AARON DAVID MACKEY.\n ______________________\n\n Before LOURIE, MAYER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.\n Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.\n Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge MAYER.\n LOURIE, Circuit Judge.\n Uniloc USA, Inc., and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (collec-\n tively, \u201cUniloc\u201d) appeal from a decision of the United States\n District Court for the Northern District of California refus-\n ing to seal certain documents in several related cases be-\n tween Uniloc and Apple Inc. (\u201cApple\u201d). See Uniloc USA,\n Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 3d 550 (N.D. Cal. 2020)\n (\u201cDecision\u201d). For the reasons provided below, we vacate\n and remand.\n BACKGROUND\n This is Uniloc\u2019s second appeal regarding the sealing of\n documents. In its first appeal, Uniloc attempted to defend\n requests to seal matters of public record, such as quota-\n tions of this court\u2019s opinions and a list of patent cases\n Uniloc had filed. See Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., 964\n F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The district court correctly ap-\n plied its local rules to reject these requests in their entirety\n and to reject Uniloc\u2019s request for reconsideration. This\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 14\n\n\n\n\n UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC. 3\n\n\n\n court affirmed the district court\u2019s rulings in nearly all re-\n spects.\n We also held, however, that the district court must con-\n duct a more detailed analysis on whether confidential li-\n censing information of certain third-party licensees of\n Uniloc\u2019s patents should be sealed. Id. at 1363\u201364. As for\n this subset of information, we remanded for the district\n court to \u201cmake particularized determinations as to whether\n and, if so, to what extent, the materials of each of these\n parties should be made public.\u201d Id. at 1364. The present\n appeal is narrowly directed to this third-party licensing in-\n formation.\n One threshold issue raised by this court in its remand\n order was whether Uniloc\u2019s financier, Fortress Credit Co.\n LLC (\u201cFortress\u201d), should be considered a third party or a\n Uniloc-related entity for purposes of sealing. Uniloc moved\n to seal or redact third-party documents that revealed li-\n censing terms, licensees\u2019 names, amounts paid, and dates.\n One document at issue was a Fortress investment memo-\n randum that contained Fortress\u2019s investment criteria and\n other third-party licensing information. Apple did not op-\n pose Uniloc\u2019s motion. The Electronic Frontier Foundation\n (\u201cEFF\u201d) moved to intervene to argue in favor of unsealing,\n and the district court granted its motion.\n The district court denied Uniloc\u2019s motion. The court\n explained that \u201c[t]he public has every right to account\n for . . . anyone holding even a slice of the public grant.\u201d De-\n cision at 554. It added that \u201cpatent licenses carry unique\n considerations\u201d that bolster the public\u2019s right of access, in-\n cluding the valuation of patent rights. Id. at 555. The\n court further stated that \u201c[t]he public has an interest in in-\n specting the valuation of the patent rights\u201d reflected in\n Uniloc\u2019s licenses. Id. It then suggested that disclosure of\n patent licensing terms would facilitate \u201cup-front cost eval-\n uations of potentially infringing conduct,\u201d \u201cdriv[e] license\n values to a more accurate representation of the\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 4 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 4 UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC.\n\n\n\n technological value of the patent,\u201d and help \u201cinform reason-\n able royalties in other courts.\u201d Id.\n The district court also determined that \u201cthe dates and\n dollar amounts involved in Uniloc\u2019s patent licenses go to\n the heart of the primary dispute, that of Uniloc\u2019s standing\n (or lack of) to sue.\u201d Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).\n The court then ordered that the licensing information, in-\n cluding the identity of the licensees, be unsealed in full.\n With respect to the Fortress investment memorandum,\n the district court found that Fortress did not comply with\n Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) of the Northern District of California\n because Uniloc filed a declaration in support of sealing, in-\n stead of Fortress, as required by the rules. Id. On this\n basis alone, the court denied Uniloc\u2019s request to seal this\n document.\n Uniloc filed the present notice of appeal to this court.\n We have jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doc-\n trine. See Uniloc 2017, 964 F.3d at 1357\u201358.\n DISCUSSION\n This appeal involves the standard for sealing court rec-\n ords, not substantive issues of patent law. Thus, Ninth\n Circuit law applies. Uniloc 2017, 964 F.3d at 1357. \u201cIn the\n Ninth Circuit, a district court\u2019s decision to seal or unseal\n court records is reviewed for abuse of discretion.\u201d Id. \u201cA\n district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on\n an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous findings\n of fact.\u201d Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214,\n 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n A district court also abuses its discretion if the reviewing\n court \u201chas a definite and firm conviction that the court be-\n low committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion\n it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.\u201d Id.\n Sealing may be appropriate to keep records from being\n used \u201cas sources of business information that might harm\n a litigant\u2019s competitive standing.\u201d Nixon v. Warner\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 5 of 14\n\n\n\n\n UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC. 5\n\n\n\n Commc\u2019ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). In the Ninth Cir-\n cuit, \u201ccompelling reasons\u201d are needed to seal judicial rec-\n ords related to a dispositive motion. Kamakana v. City &\n Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006).\n Such compelling reasons include preventing the release of\n trade secrets. Id.\n Uniloc and Apple both argue that the district court\n erred in failing to follow this court\u2019s remand instructions to\n make particularized determinations as to whether third-\n party licensing information should be sealed. The parties\n contend that the court erroneously applied heightened\n scrutiny to requests to seal licensing information. Apple\n adds that such information can rise to the level of a trade\n secret, which is the type of information that the Ninth Cir-\n cuit has deemed sealable. Uniloc cites various cases from\n the district court and the Ninth Circuit sealing similar\n types of information. See, e.g., Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google\n LLC, 508 F. Supp. 3d 556, 575 n.23 (N.D. Cal. 2020); In re\n Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App\u2019x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2009).\n Intervenor EFF counters that denying Uniloc\u2019s motion\n was a sound use of the district court\u2019s discretion. EFF adds\n that the court conscientiously weighed Uniloc\u2019s submis-\n sions in support of sealing and concluded that they were\n insufficient to overcome the public\u2019s strong interest in ac-\n cess.\n We conclude that the district court failed to follow our\n remand instructions to make particularized determina-\n tions as to whether the third-party licensing information\n sought to be sealed should be made public. That failure\n was an abuse of discretion. The first time this case ap-\n peared before us, \u201cthe district court failed to make findings\n sufficient to allow us to adequately assess whether it\n properly balanced the public\u2019s right of access against the\n interests of the third parties in shielding their financial\n and licensing information from public view.\u201d Uniloc 2017,\n 964 F.3d at 1364. We explained that \u201cthere is no indication\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 6 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 6 UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC.\n\n\n\n in the record that the court assessed whether any of the\n third-party information was protectable as a trade secret\n or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.\u201d Id. (in-\n ternal quotation marks omitted). We thus remanded and\n instructed that the district court \u201cmake particularized de-\n terminations as to whether and, if so, to what extent, the\n materials of each of these parties should be made pub-\n lic.\u201d Id. Yet, on remand, the district court again neglected\n to make sufficient findings. Nowhere in the record does the\n district court discuss whether any of the third-party mate-\n rials constitute protectable trade secrets. See Deci-\n sion. For that reason, and because it is relevant to the\n protectability of the license information, we remand for the\n district court to carry out the examination this court in-\n structed it to do.\n We also disagree with the district court\u2019s statements\n purportedly supporting its decision concerning the public\u2019s\n right of access to information relating to patent licenses.\n The court stated that \u201c[t]he public has an interest in in-\n specting the valuation of patent rights . . . particularly\n given secrecy so often plays into the patentee\u2019s advantage\n in forcing bloated royalties.\u201d Decision at 555. The court\n thus made an error of law in making a blanket ruling that\n the public has a broad right to licensing information relat-\n ing to patents.\n The public indeed does have an interest in patents, but\n it is an interest in ensuring that patents are not procured\n by fraud, or other improper means. See U.S. v. Glaxo Grp.\n Ltd., 410 U.S. 52, 57\u201358 (1973) (discussing the public in-\n terest in free competition and ensuring that patents are not\n obtained by fraudulent means). This is because patents are\n to be granted only if they are valid, i.e., they describe and\n claim inventions meeting the requirements of the law, in-\n ventions that are novel, not obvious, and described in an\n enabling manner.\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 7 of 14\n\n\n\n\n UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC. 7\n\n\n\n The enforcement of patents is also imbued with the\n public interest. Litigants and their counsel are subject to\n Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring\n that parties presenting a case perform an \u201cinquiry reason-\n able under the circumstances\u201d as to the legal and factual\n merits of the claim, and they are subject to sanctions for an\n exceptional case and for a frivolous appeal. Fed. R. Civ.\n P. 11. Moreover, a patent can be held to be unenforceable\n for inequitable conduct in its procurement. But no rule of\n law or binding precedent says that the public is generally\n entitled to know what consideration a patentee receives for\n licensing its patent.\n The district court stated that patents are granted in\n derogation of the usual free flow of goods and ideas. It\n stated colorfully that \u201ca patent owner is a tenant on a plot\n within the public realm of public knowledge, and a licensee\n a subtenant.\u201d Decision at 554. Those statements are in-\n correct, as patents are granted for inventions that, until\n their disclosure, did not constitute any flow of goods. Goods\n claimed in a patent, if the patent is valid, did not previously\n flow. Patents are granted for new inventions, those which\n did not flow in commerce before the invention. A properly-\n issued patent creates new land, keeping within the court\u2019s\n metaphor. It expands public knowledge.\n The district court stated that the public has a strong\n interest in knowing the full extent of the terms and condi-\n tions involved in the exercise of its patent rights and in see-\n ing the extent to which the patentee\u2019s exercise of the\n government grant affects commerce. But this is not an an-\n titrust case or an FTC investigation involving unlawful re-\n straint of trade or monopolization. It is a suit for patent\n infringement. Absent an issue raised by the parties con-\n cerning license rights and provisions, there is no public in-\n terest or entitlement to information concerning\n consideration for the grant of licenses. The parties are in\n agreement that license information here should be sealed\n and protected. The only differing voice has come from an\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 8 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 8 UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC.\n\n\n\n independent nonparty, appointed by the district court to\n advocate unsealing the information that neither party\n wished to unseal. But we have seen no citation of a rule of\n law providing a presumption of access in a patent infringe-\n ment suit to information concerning consideration for the\n licensing of a patent.\n An earlier issue in this case was a question of alleged\n indiscriminate oversealing in patent and commercial cases\n nationwide. For that reason, in the earlier appearance of\n this case in our court, we affirmed-in-part the district\n court\u2019s refusal to seal all the requested information and re-\n manded for the limited purpose of assessing whether third-\n party licensing information should be sealed. But overseal-\n ing was no longer the issue on remand.\n The district court did note that a key issue in this case\n was whether Uniloc had received at least $20 million in\n royalties needed under licensing agreements to provide it\n with standing to sue. But that fact can be proved without\n opening up all the licenses that the court granted access to.\n Lastly, for the Fortress investment memorandum, any\n procedural failings of Uniloc and Fortress cannot justify\n unsealing the information of third parties. The district\n court should have considered whether the interests of the\n implicated third parties outweigh the public\u2019s interest in\n seeing individual licensing details that are not necessary\n for resolving this case.\n We therefore vacate and remand for the district court\n to comply with this court\u2019s previous remand instructions.\n CONCLUSION\n We have considered EFF\u2019s remaining arguments, but\n we find them unpersuasive. Because the district court\n failed to follow our previous remand instructions to make\n particularized determinations as to whether third-party li-\n censing information should be sealed, we vacate the court\u2019s\n denial and remand for the court to perform that analysis.\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 9 of 14\n\n\n\n\n UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC. 9\n\n\n\n VACATED AND REMANDED\n COSTS\n\n No costs.\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 10 of 14\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\n\n UNILOC 2017 LLC,\n Plaintiff\n\n v.\n\n APPLE INC.,\n Defendant-Appellee\n\n ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,\n Intervenor-Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2021-1568, 2021-1569, 2021-1570, 2021-1571, 2021-1573\n ______________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of California in Nos. 3:18-cv-00358-\n WHA, 3:18-cv-00360-WHA, 3:18-cv-00363-WHA, 3:18-cv-\n 00365-WHA, 3:18-cv-00572-WHA, Judge William H.\n Alsup.\n ______________________\n MAYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting.\n The district court adhered to our remand instructions\n when it carefully weighed the public\u2019s right of access to\n court records against the interests of third-party patent li-\n censees in shielding their licensing information from public\n view. The court\u2019s decision to deny the motion by Uniloc\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 11 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 2 UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC.\n\n\n\n USA, Inc., and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (collectively,\n \u201cUniloc\u201d) to seal information related to its licenses with\n third parties was a sound exercise of discretion given that\n the dates and dollar amounts of those licenses went \u201cto the\n heart of the primary dispute\u201d between Uniloc and Apple\n Inc., which was whether Uniloc had generated sufficient li-\n censing revenue to provide it with standing to sue. Uniloc\n USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 3d 550, 555 (N.D. Cal.\n 2020) (\u201cDistrict Court Decision\u201d) (internal quotation marks\n omitted). Uniloc\u2019s third-party licensees, moreover, failed to\n demonstrate a compelling interest in keeping their licens-\n ing information confidential. See id. at 554. I therefore\n respectfully dissent.\n The public\u2019s right of access to documents filed in con-\n nection with a dispositive pleading is sacrosanct. See\n Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,\n 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that \u201cthe strong presump-\n tion of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive\n pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and\n related attachments,\u201d given that \u201cthe resolution of a dis-\n pute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment,\n is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public\u2019s un-\n derstanding of the judicial process and of significant public\n events\u201d (citations and internal quotation marks omitted));\n see also DePuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthope-\n dic Implants, Inc., 990 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2021)\n (stating that the \u201clongstanding right\u201d of access to judicial\n records and documents \u201chelps secure the integrity and\n transparency of the judicial process\u201d); In re Chiquita\n Brands Int\u2019l, Inc., 965 F.3d 1238, 1242 (11th Cir. 2020) (\u201cA\n lawsuit is a public event. Parties who ask a court to resolve\n a dispute must typically walk in the public eye.\u201d); In re\n Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (explaining\n that \u201c[t]he public\u2019s right of access extends beyond simply\n the ability to attend open court proceedings\u201d and includes\n \u201ca pervasive common law right to inspect and copy public\n records and documents, including judicial records and\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 12 of 14\n\n\n\n\n UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC. 3\n\n\n\n documents\u201d (citations and internal quotation marks omit-\n ted)). The right can be abridged only in certain narrow cir-\n cumstances, and the party seeking to seal information\n bears the burden of providing \u201csufficiently compelling rea-\n sons for doing so.\u201d Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,\n 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). While \u201c[m]any a liti-\n gant would prefer that the subject of [its] case . . . be kept\n from the curious (including its business rivals and custom-\n ers),\u201d those who \u201ccall on the courts . . . must accept the\n openness that goes with subsidized dispute resolution by\n public (and publicly accountable) officials.\u201d Union Oil Co.\n v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567\u201368 (7th Cir. 2000).\n What constitutes a compelling reason to seal docu-\n ments is a determination \u201cbest left to the sound discretion\n of the trial court.\u201d Nixon v. Warner Commc\u2019ns, Inc., 435\n U.S. 589, 599 (1978). Here, the district court did not abuse\n its discretion in concluding that Uniloc\u2019s third-party licen-\n sees failed to make out a compelling case for shielding their\n licensing information from public view. Notably, not a sin-\n gle licensee directly filed a request with the district court\n seeking to seal its licensing information. See District Court\n Decision, 508 F. Supp. 3d at 554. Instead, when this case\n was initially pending before the district court, \u201cUniloc so-\n licited the views of all one hundred nine licensees regard-\n ing the sealing of their patent license details.\u201d Id. While\n thirty-one licensees requested that all or part of their li-\n censing information be kept confidential, only thirteen li-\n censees submitted declarations in support of their\n requests. See id.; J.A. 436\u201350, 805\u201337 (sealed third-party\n declarations).\n These declarations, by and large, are vague and conclu-\n sory and fail to provide concrete evidence that the dissem-\n ination of licensing information would cause the licensees\n significant competitive injury in future licensing negotia-\n tions or that the licensing information in question other-\n wise qualifies as a trade secret. See J.A. 436\u201350, 805\u201337;\n see also Total Recall Techs. v. Luckey, No. 21-15590, 2021\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 13 of 14\n\n\n\n\n 4 UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC.\n\n\n\n WL 5401664, at *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2021) (affirming a dis-\n trict court\u2019s order denying seven motions to seal where the\n party seeking sealing failed to provide \u201cspecific\u201d or \u201ccom-\n pelling\u201d evidence for doing so); DePuy, 990 F.3d at 1373 (af-\n firming a district court order unsealing purportedly\n confidential business information where the declarations\n filed by the party seeking to prevent disclosure failed to ad-\n dress how making the information public \u201cwould harm its\n proprietary and competitive business interests\u201d (citations\n and internal quotation marks omitted)); Kamakana, 447\n F.3d at 1182 (explaining that a party\u2019s \u201cconclusory\u201ddecla-\n rations about the confidential nature of certain documents\n did \u201cnot rise to the level of \u2018compelling reasons\u2019 sufficiently\n specific to bar the public access to the documents\u201d). Indeed,\n only one of the publicly available declarations even uses\n the term \u201ctrade secret\u201d and that declaration broadly, and\n without meaningful support, states that all the company\u2019s\n \u201cfinancial records\u201d qualify as trade secrets. J.A. 438. Im-\n portantly, moreover, none of the declarations adequately\n explain why redacting the names of the third-party licen-\n sees\u2014but fully disclosing the dates and dollar amounts of\n their licenses with Uniloc\u2014would not serve to eradicate\n any even arguable concern regarding the disclosure of\n trade secret information. See N.D. Cal. Civ. Local R. 79-\n 5(b) (2018) (emphasizing that any motion to seal \u201cmust be\n narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material\u201d\n (emphasis added)).\n The fact that other courts, under other circumstances,\n have granted motions to seal patent licensing information\n does not mean that the district court abused its discretion\n in declining to do so here. This case involves the unusual\n situation in which Uniloc, the party seeking the sealing or-\n der, forfeited its right to keep its licensing information con-\n fidential because its \u201coriginal sealing request was grossly\n excessive and its flouting of Local Rule 79-5 particularly\n flagrant.\u201d Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., 964 F.3d 1351,\n 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2020).\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 201 Filed 02/09/22 Page 14 of 14\n\n\n\n\n UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC. 5\n\n\n\n I disagree with this court\u2019s conclusion that the district\n court \u201cmade an error of law in making a blanket ruling that\n the public has a broad right to licensing information relat-\n ing to patents.\u201d Ante at 6. The public presumptively has a\n broad right of access to all information filed with a court in\n connection with a dispositive motion, and this includes pa-\n tent licensing information. See, e.g., Kamakana, 447 F.3d\n at 1180 (explaining that \u201cjudicial records are public docu-\n ments almost by definition, and the public is entitled to ac-\n cess by default\u201d).\n \u201cThe political branches of government claim legitimacy\n by election, judges by reason. Any step that withdraws an\n element of the judicial process from public view makes the\n ensuing decision look more like fiat, which requires com-\n pelling justification.\u201d Union Oil, 220 F.3d at 568. Because\n the third-party licensees failed to supply compelling rea-\n sons for overriding the strong presumption in favor of pub-\n lic access, I would affirm.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2022-02-09T09:41:43.023139-08:00","document_number":"201","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035021590007","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"USCA Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-02-09T09:32:06.492615-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:39.340885-07:00","date_filed":"2022-02-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":201,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-02-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":645,"description":"OPINION of United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as to (240 in 3:18-cv-00572-WHA 2021-1569), (250 in 3:18-cv-00365-WHA 2021-1570), (214 in 3:18-cv-00363-WHA 2021-1571), (238 in 3:18-cv-00360-WHA 2021-1568,), (194 in 3:18-cv-00358-WHA 2021-1573). (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2022) (Entered: 02/09/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/187086930/","id":187086930,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/192617719/","id":192617719,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6309622/202/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc/","date_created":"2022-02-09T09:32:06.284905-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-22T02:12:24.643972-07:00","sha1":"375a0caca135c74c6c2a2293aa2c75c398f0d254","page_count":2,"file_size":102071,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.321469/gov.uscourts.cand.321469.202.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.321469/gov.uscourts.cand.321469.202.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 202 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG\n S.A.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\n\n UNILOC 2017 LLC,\n Plaintiff\n\n v.\n\n APPLE INC.,\n Defendant-Appellee\n\n ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,\n Intervenor-Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2021-1568, 2021-1569, 2021-1570, 2021-1571, 2021-1573\n ______________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of California in Nos. 3:18-cv-00360-\n WHA, 3:18-cv-00572-WHA, 3:18-cv-00365-WHA, 3:18-cv-\n 00363-WHA, 3:18-cv-00358-WHA, Judge William H.\n Alsup.\n ______________________\n\n JUDGMENT\n ______________________\n\n THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 202 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:\n\n VACATED AND REMANDED\n\n FOR THE COURT\n\n February 9, 2022\n Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner\n Peter R. Marksteiner\n Clerk of Court\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-03-21T20:25:09.589189-07:00","document_number":"202","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035021590021","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"USCA Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2022-02-09T09:32:06.277300-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:39.360754-07:00","date_filed":"2022-02-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":202,"recap_sequence_number":"2022-02-09.002","pacer_sequence_number":648,"description":"Judgment of United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as to (240 in 3:18-cv-00572-WHA 2021-1569), (250 in 3:18-cv-00365-WHA 2021-1570), (214 in 3:18-cv-00363-WHA 2021-1571), (238 in 3:18-cv-00360-WHA 2021-1568,), (194 in 3:18-cv-00358-WHA 2021-1573). (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2022) (Entered: 02/09/2022)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/168916771/","id":168916771,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/174163274/","id":174163274,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6309622/200/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc/","date_created":"2021-07-01T14:04:35.233243-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:10.184835-07:00","sha1":"553e7d1e1177a9474033c6fdd3b7c5164f142783","page_count":2,"file_size":90058,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.321469/gov.uscourts.cand.321469.200.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.321469/gov.uscourts.cand.321469.200.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 200 Filed 07/01/21 Page 1 of 2 (1 of 2)\n\n\n\n\n NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n ______________________\n\n UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants\n\n v.\n\n APPLE INC.,\n Defendant-Appellee\n ______________________\n\n 2021-1572\n ______________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of California in No. 3:18-cv-00358-WHA,\n Judge William H. Alsup.\n ______________________\n\n ON MOTION\n ______________________\n\n ORDER\n Upon consideration of the parties\u2019 joint motion to vol-\n untarily dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of\n Appellate Procedure 42(b),\n IT IS ORDERED THAT:\n (1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.\n (2) All pending motions are denied as moot.\n\fCase 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 200 Filed 07/01/21 Page 2 of 2 (2 of 2)\n\n\n\n\n 2 UNILOC USA, INC. v. APPLE INC.\n\n\n\n (3) The parties shall bear their own costs.\n FOR THE COURT\n\n June 29, 2021 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner\n Date Peter R. Marksteiner\n Clerk of Court\n s28\n\n ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 29, 2021\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2021-08-31T16:56:29.905407-07:00","document_number":"200","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020775707","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"USCA Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-07-01T14:04:35.225894-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:10.170769-07:00","date_filed":"2021-07-01","time_filed":null,"entry_number":200,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-07-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":642,"description":"ORDER of USFCA as to 195 . The motion is granted. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2021) (Entered: 07/01/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/167885077/","id":167885077,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/173120344/","id":173120344,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6309622/199/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc/","date_created":"2021-06-22T14:03:55.527046-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:10.156979-07:00","sha1":"e376c6797710f83656e3832d6995967ec9160944","page_count":2,"file_size":124174,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.321469/gov.uscourts.cand.321469.199.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.321469/gov.uscourts.cand.321469.199.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"1 Aaron S. Jacobs (Cal. Bar No. 214953) Michael T. Pieja (CA Bar No. 250351)\n ajacobs@princelobel.com Alan E. Littmann (pro hac vice)\n2 James J. Foster Doug Winnard (CA Bar No. 275420)\n jfoster@princelobel.com Andrew J. Rima (pro hac vice)\n3 PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP Emma C. Ross (pro hac vice)\n One International Place, Suite 3700 GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI\n4 Boston, MA 02110 BRENNAN & BAUM LLP\n Tel: (617) 456-8000 564 W. Randolph St., Suite 400\n5 Chicago, IL 60661\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tel: (312) 681-6000\n6 Fax: (312) 881-5191\n\n7 Attorneys for Defendant\n\n8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION\n\n11 UNILOC USA, INC. and Case No.: 3:18-cv-00358-WHA\n UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,\n12 STIPULATED MOTION FOR\n Plaintiffs, VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH\n13 PREJUDICE\n v.\n14\n APPLE INC.,\n15\n Defendant.\n16\n Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (\u201cUniloc\u201d), and Defendant Apple,\n17\n Inc. (\u201cDefendant\u201d) have agreed to settle the above matter, and therefore jointly stipulate and move\n18\n under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss with prejudice all claims and\n19\n counterclaims between the parties. Plaintiffs and Defendant shall each bear their own attorneys\u2019 fees,\n20\n expenses, and costs.\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n\n STIPULATED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL\n 1 CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00358-WHA\n WITH PREJUDICE\n 3554491.v1\n\f1 Respectfully Submitted,\n Dated: June 22, 2021\n2 /s/ Aaron S. Jacobs\n Aaron S. Jacobs (Cal. Bar No. 214953)\n3 ajacobs@princelobel.com\n James J. Foster\n4 jfoster@princelobel.com\n PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP\n5 One International Place, Suite 3700\n Boston, MA 02110\n6 Tel: (617) 456-8000\n\n7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n\n8\n\n9 Dated: June 22, 2021\n /s/ Michael T. Pieja\n10 Michael T. Pieja (CA Bar No. 250351)\n Alan E. Littmann (pro hac vice)\n11 Doug Winnard (CA Bar No. 275420)\n Andrew J. Rima (pro hac vice)\n12 Emma C. Ross (pro hac vice)\n GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI\n13 BRENNAN & BAUM LLP\n 564 W. Randolph St., Suite 400\n14 Chicago, IL 60661\n Tel: (312) 681-6000\n15 Fax: (312) 881-5191\n\n16 Attorneys for Defendant\n\n17\n ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE\n18\n I am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this document. In\n19\n compliance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that counsel for Defendant has concurred in this\n20\n filing.\n21\n\n22\n Dated: June 22, 2021 /s/ Aaron S. Jacobs\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n\n STIPULATED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL\n WITH PREJUDICE 2 CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00358-WHA\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2021-06-22T14:14:02.330609-07:00","document_number":"199","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020736159","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-06-22T14:03:55.515998-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:10.143379-07:00","date_filed":"2021-06-22","time_filed":null,"entry_number":199,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-06-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":636,"description":"MOTION to Dismiss filed by UNILOC Luxembourg S.A., Uniloc USA, Inc.. Responses due by 7/6/2021. Replies due by 7/13/2021. (Jacobs, Aaron) (Filed on 6/22/2021) (Entered: 06/22/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/167440871/","id":167440871,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/172670876/","id":172670876,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6309622/198/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc/","date_created":"2021-06-17T07:32:02.980794-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:10.129752-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"198","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020720346","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-06-17T07:32:02.972182-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:10.113422-07:00","date_filed":"2021-06-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":198,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-06-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":633,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance by Mark Daniel Selwyn (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 6/17/2021) (Entered: 06/17/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/166364717/","id":166364717,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/171580287/","id":171580287,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6309622/197/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc/","date_created":"2021-06-04T11:35:05.252602-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:10.099163-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"197","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020672924","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change of Address","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-06-04T11:35:05.245717-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:10.086561-07:00","date_filed":"2021-06-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":197,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-06-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":631,"description":"NOTICE of Change of Address by Kenneth Frederick Baum (Baum, Kenneth) (Filed on 6/4/2021) (Entered: 06/04/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/153991919/","id":153991919,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6309622/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/159039135/","id":159039135,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6309622/195/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple-inc/","date_created":"2021-01-26T19:05:18.801560-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:10.045536-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"195","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035020182696","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"USCA Case Number","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-01-26T19:05:18.795884-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-21T20:23:10.030115-07:00","date_filed":"2021-01-26","time_filed":null,"entry_number":195,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-01-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":623,"description":"USFA Case Number 2021-1572 USFC for 191 Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit, filed by UNILOC Luxembourg S.A., Uniloc USA, Inc.. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2021) (Entered: 01/26/2021)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=6309622&page_size=40"}