Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG

Background

Regeneron and defendants Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis Technology LLC, and Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp. submitted a joint pre-motion letter concerning a discovery dispute. The letter included Exhibit 2, a copy of Novartis’s Patent Prosecution Guide. Novartis had produced the Guide under an “Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only” designation under the parties’ amended protective order. The parties asked to file the Guide under seal, and the request was unopposed.

Arguments and legal standard

The sealing request explained that the Guide was prepared by Novartis’s Patent Prosecution Practice and Pharma Patent Prosecution Efficiency Champions Teams as an internal tool for Novartis’s Intellectual Property Practice Group. According to the request, it contained guidance about cost-saving strategies in patent prosecution, methods for assessing the commercial relevance of Novartis patents, record-keeping processes, and other confidential business information. Novartis argued that disclosure could give competitors an advantage. It also stated that sealing would protect potentially privileged material if the court later determined that certain portions were privileged, while noting that Novartis disputed Regeneron’s privilege-waiver position.

The request cited the common-law presumption that judicial documents should be accessible to the public, while explaining that the presumption is generally lower for filings connected to discovery disputes than for materials submitted at trial or with dispositive motions. It also cited the possibility of sealing confidential business information when public disclosure could cause competitive harm.

Ruling

The court ordered that Exhibit 2, the Guide, remain under seal. The publicly filed document was to contain a placeholder for the exhibit instead. The provided text does not show a separate ruling on whether any portion of the Guide was privileged or whether privilege had been waived.