Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG

Background

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and defendants Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis Technology LLC, and Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp. submitted a joint letter seeking permission to file a pre-motion letter and identified exhibits under seal or in redacted form. The pre-motion letter concerned Regeneron’s assertion that Novartis had waived attorney-client or work-product privilege regarding documents and communications about an investigation into Vetter’s inventorship claim involving U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631.

Requested Sealing

The filing described several categories of information the parties sought to protect. Regeneron sought to seal an excerpt of a deposition transcript containing nonpublic patent-sublicense offers and related strategic and commercial decisions. Novartis sought to seal or redact agreements and related documents containing royalty rates, licensing and sublicensing terms, negotiations with Vetter, development strategies, and information about Novartis’s position in its dispute with Vetter. The parties also sought protection for materials whose privileged status was disputed, including an interrogatory response, deposition testimony, and discovery letters referring to those materials.

The parties argued that disclosure of the commercial information could cause competitive harm, including by giving competitors or future negotiating partners information about their contract terms and negotiating strategies. They also argued that sealing could protect privileged information if the Court ultimately determined that some disputed materials were privileged. The request relied on the presumption of public access to judicial documents and the court’s authority to protect confidential or competitively sensitive information.

Ruling

The Court granted the application. Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered that the unredacted document, Doc. 179, remain under seal and that the redacted document, Doc. 180, remain the publicly filed version. The order did not decide the underlying privilege-waiver dispute or the parties’ patent-related claims.