ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
1 February 2012 (*)
(Confidentiality)
In Case T‑148/10,
Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., established in Gyeonggi-do (Korea), represented by A. Woodgate and O. Heinisch, Solicitors,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by S. Noë, A. Antoniadis, J. Bourke and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents,
defendant,
supported by
Rambus, Inc., established in Los Altos, California (United States), represented by I. Forrester QC, J. Killick, Barrister, and P. Berghe, lawyer,
intervener,
APPLICATION for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 December 2009 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 102 TFEU and 54 EEA (Case COMP/38.636‑Rambus),
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
makes the following
Order
Procedure
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 25 March 2010, the applicant, Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., brought an action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 December 2009 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 102 TFEU and 54 EEA (Case COMP/38.636-Rambus), making binding the commitments by Rambus, Inc. to limit, for a period of five years, its royalty rates on certain patents for semiconductors for dynamic RAM (DRAM) chips, in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), and bringing the procedure to an end.
2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 July 2010, Rambus, Inc. sought leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the European Commission.
3 The application to intervene was served on the parties in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
4 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 3 September 2010, the applicant requested that certain figures and information, contained in the application and the annexes thereto and in the defence, be treated confidentially.
5 By order of 30 September 2010, leave to intervene was granted. Since, in accordance with Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the applicant had requested that certain information contained in the file be treated confidentially, that order provisionally limited the communication of procedural documents to the intervener to a non‑confidential version, pending any comments from the latter on the application for confidential treatment.
6 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 19 October 2010, the intervener submitted its objections to the application for confidential treatment made by the applicant in relation to certain annexes to the application.
7 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 17 November 2010, the applicant submitted its comments in response to those objections.
The application for confidential treatment
8 The applicant made an application for confidential treatment in relation to the intervener in respect of the following information:
– certain information set out in paragraphs 155, 161, 172(5), 207 and footnote 25 of the application;
– all or part of Annexes A.2, A.12, A.29 and A.30 to the application;
– certain information set out in paragraphs 119 and 122 and footnotes 8, 30, 74 and 75 of the defence.
9 The intervener objected to that application in so far as it concerns Annexes A.12, A.29 and A.30 to the application.
10 In that regard, it should be noted, first, that an application for confidential treatment must, in principle, be upheld in so far as it concerns information which has not been disputed by an intervener or not disputed expressly and in detail. Therefore, the application for confidential treatment must be upheld in so far as it has not been disputed by the intervener.
11 Second, in so far as concerns the application for confidential treatment of Annexes A.12, A.29 and A.30 to the application, it is apparent from the applicant’s comments of 17 November 2010 that the application relates to confidential information originating from, or already known to, the intervener, which itself communicated that information to the applicant, and that the latter considered itself obliged to respect the confidential nature thereof as against third parties, in accordance with American court decisions. Therefore, there is no need to grant the application for confidential treatment of that information in relation to the intervener.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1. The application for confidential treatment made by Hynix Semiconductors, Inc., in relation to Rambus, Inc., is granted in so far as it concerns:
– certain information set out in paragraphs 155, 161, 172(5), 207 and footnote 25 of the application;
– Annex 2 to the application;
– certain information set out in paragraphs 119 and 122 and footnotes 8, 30, 74 and 75 of the defence.
2. The application for confidential treatment is dismissed as to the remainder.
3. A time limit shall be given to Hynix to submit a non-confidential version of the procedural documents referred to in point 1 above.
4. A copy of the non-confidential version of all the procedural documents referred to in point 1 above shall be served on Rambus by the Registrar.
5. A time limit shall be given to Rambus to set out, in writing, its additional observations on the documents communicated in accordance with this order.
6. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 1 February 2012.