SAN JOSE (LN) — U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on Monday narrowed the scope of Apple’s "Source Code" designation in its patent dispute with Oppo and InnoPeak, ruling that high-level product roadmaps do not merit the heightened protections afforded to actual computer code or detailed engineering schematics.
The order resolves two discovery disputes: the definition of "Source Code" under the parties’ proposed protective order, and Apple’s application of that designation to more than 120 documents.
The Northern District of California Model Stipulated Protective Order defines "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL–SOURCE CODE Information or Items" as extremely sensitive materials representing computer code, formulas, or schematics that define the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs.
Apple urged the court to expand that definition to include "roadmaps for unreleased products or features," arguing that such documents reveal "Apple’s most strategic priorities, including unreleased technologies, future product plans, and methods for overcoming technical or competitive barriers."
Apple warned that improper disclosure of these roadmaps would cause irreparable harm by providing insight into its product plans for years into the future.
Defendants Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. and InnoPeak Technology argued that the court should stick to the Model Order’s definition, which excludes roadmaps. They contended that the essential characteristic justifying Source Code handling is the material’s ability to be copied and used to "replicate functional technology."
DeMarchi agreed with the defendants, noting that while many roadmaps contain sensitive information, they are often "higher-level business strategy documents" that do not reveal the technical details of products or technology.
"Apple has not shown that these documents cannot be protected of inadvertent disclosure by invoking, for example, the Model Order protections for 'HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY Information or Items,'" DeMarchi wrote.
However, the judge carved out an exception: a roadmap may be designated as Source Code if it contains information that "define[s] or otherwise describe[s] in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs."
The court adopted a modified definition for Section 2.9 of the protective order that includes roadmaps only "that define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware designs."
DeMarchi then reviewed eight documents submitted for in camera inspection to determine which of Apple’s designations should stand.
The court found that only specific portions of the documents met the new standard. Apple’s motion to retain Source Code designations was granted for pages 4 and 31-34 of Exhibit 5, which contain chipset schematics; pages 5 and 25 of Exhibit 11, which contain system-level schematics for wearable ECG technology; and all pages of Exhibit 13, an engineering requirements specification for an optical PPG sensor.
The court also allowed Source Code designations for page 37 of Exhibit 14, which shows a chipset block diagram, and specific pages of Exhibit 16 containing formulas related to noise sensitivity calculations.
The majority of the disputed materials were denied Source Code status. The court found that pages from Exhibits 3, 7, and 9 consisted of feature planning, timelines, cost analysis, and high-level architecture diagrams that did not describe the detailed structure of software or hardware designs. While most of Exhibit 14 was also denied, page 37 of that exhibit was granted Source Code status.
"Apple acknowledges that product and feature roadmaps do not fall within the scope of section 2.9 of the Model Order," DeMarchi noted, adding that these documents generally do not meet the applicable definition in the parties’ proposed order.
The court deferred ruling on the specific protective measures for Source Code material in Section 8.4 of the order. Defendants must submit any proposals for modifications to Apple’s proposed text by May 22, 2026, with a final protective order due by June 1, 2026.
Unless the parties agree otherwise, Apple must re-designate all other portions of the eight documents submitted for in camera review under a lower confidentiality level.