The parties filed under seal certain documents attached to pre- and post-trial motions, which contained product-specific financial information including costs, sales, profits and profit margins. Although the parties agreed to file these materials under seal, certain third-party interveners objected, and the court ordered the documents unsealed. The district court held that the parties had failed to show that disclosure of this financial information could cause competitive harm and, thus, they failed to demonstrate a “compelling reason” to seal the documents. The court found that Apple and Samsung had merely assumed, without proving, that their products were “perfectly interchangeable” with their competitors and that competitors could actually use this information to their benefit, and also questioned how past profit and cost data could meaningfully predict future business plans. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to seal the financial documents. Apple v. Samsung Electronics Co., Nos. 2012-1600, 2012-1606, 2013-1146 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2013). Applying Ninth Circuit precedent, the Federal Circuit ruled that with respect to documents attached to non-dispositive motions, a party need not show a “compelling reason” to seal, but merely “good cause” to seal under FRCP 26(c). Further, even under the compelling-reason standard, the district court erred in refusing to seal the documents. The Federal Circuit held that it was clear that Apple and Samsung could suffer competitive harm if the information was made public because, among other things, it could give suppliers an advantage in contract negotiations. The court also held that the public’s interest in this information was minimal, given that the information was not considered by the jury and is not essential to the public’s understanding of the court’s rulings or the jury’s damages award.