"This Court has repeatedly explained that only the pricing and royalty terms of license agreements may be sealed," Koh wrote in a ruling. "There are compelling reasons to seal pricing and royalty terms, as they may place the parties to the agreement at a disadvantage in future negotiations, but there is nothing in the remainder of the agreement that presents a sufficient risk of competitive harm to justify keeping it from the public."
Thus it appears we will soon know which patents were part of the agreement.
"The Court has just explained that the only sealable terms of the license agreement are the payment and royalty terms. Thus, the list of patents covered by the agreement does not meet the 'compelling reasons' standard," Koh wrote.