April 19, 2021
LES Insights
By John C. Paul; D. Brian Kacedon; Anthony D. Del Monaco; Richard Hildreth III
A California judge refused to seal documents in a dispute on expert testimony that related to a patent owner’s patent valuation and licensing activities because the public’s compelling interest in the information outweighed any impact on the patent owner’s future licensing negotiations.
On the eve of a patent-infringement trial, the trial court excluded testimony from a damages expert and permitted public access to information on the patent valuation and licensing activities involved in the case.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit asked the trial court to reconsider its findings and balance the interests of the patent owner and its negotiation partners against the public’s interest in having access to information on the patent valuation and licensing activities involved in the case. But the trial court again permitted public access to information on the patent valuation and licensing activities involved in the case.
Documents and other information submitted to a court in a litigation are generally available to the public, but the parties may ask the court to consider sealing certain confidential information so that it is not publicly available. The court has discretion in deciding whether to seal documents, and dealing with sealed documents creates administrative challenges in conducting the litigation. So, documents are not routinely sealed.
While a court order making the documents available to the public would not completely dispose of the case, the court found no compelling reason to seal the documents that outweighed the public interest in disclosure of the documents. The court used the standard of “compelling cause” to seal rather than “good cause,” because the issue was more than tangentially related to the merits of a case. However, while such orders to seal documents or exclude expert testimony may not technically dispose of the case, they can effectively shape the result of the case by preventing a party from providing expert testimony supporting their cases on critical issues like the amount of damages awarded.
The court found that disclosing information on patent valuation and licensing negotiations would not compromise the leverage of a patent owner in future negotiations or dissuade potential licensees who might be wary of confidentiality concerns. No potential licensees asserted any confidentiality interest despite having the opportunity to do so. The public was entitled to know about patent-assertion activities because patents involve public rights granted by the government and the public has a strong interest in seeing how such patent grants impact commerce, as they affect patent marking by licensees, validity of patented inventions, and setting reasonable royalties.
Litigation can cause confidential documents to become available to the public. Judges have discretion in determining whether to seal such documents from disclosure, but often do not seal confidential documents because the public is interested in the information and sealing the documents causes administrative burdens to the court during the trial.
Further Information
The Finjan decision can be found here.
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.
Conference
2024 Hispanic National Bar Association Annual Convention
September 4-6, 2024
National Harbor
Webinar
June 13, 2024
Webinar
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Conference
4th Spring Pharmaceutical Synchrotron X-Ray Powder Diffraction Workshop
June 10-11, 2024
Basel
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.