Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-05502
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Regeneron v. Novartis: Judge Halpern granted an unopposed sealing application, keeping an unredacted document sealed and a redacted version public.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis Technology LLC, Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., and Vetter Pharma International GmbH, whose filings or interests concern the sealed materials.
What happened
In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG et al., the parties asked to seal materials connected to a discovery dispute about whether Regeneron waived attorney-client privilege regarding a patent sublicense offer and related testimony.
The parties said the materials included confidential business information, potentially privileged testimony, and commercially sensitive licensing and business-strategy information. They asked to file an unredacted version under seal and a redacted version publicly.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application. He ordered that the unredacted document, Document 184, remain under seal and that the redacted document, Document 183, remain the publicly filed version.
The detailed version
- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG · No. 7:20-cv-05502
- Philip Halpern
- May 6, 2025
Nature of the matter
This was an application to seal court-filed materials, not a decision on the underlying patent or privilege dispute. Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis Technology LLC, and Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. jointly sought permission to file under seal exhibits attached to a pre-motion letter concerning whether Regeneron waived privilege regarding its interpretation of an offer by Vetter for a royalty-free sublicense to the ’631 Patent. The parties also asked to file a redacted version of the pre-motion letter. The request was unopposed by the parties that had been consulted, including Vetter Pharma International GmbH.
Reasons given for sealing
The request concerned excerpts from deposition testimony and related material. The letter described testimony that might contain privileged information and testimony designated as confidential business information under the case’s protective order. The materials also concerned non-public patent-sublicense offers and strategic business and commercial-development decisions. The parties argued that public disclosure could cause competitive harm, including by disadvantaging future licensing or commercial negotiations.
The court’s discussion applied the common-law presumption of public access to judicial documents. It explained that the presumption is generally lower for filings connected to discovery disputes than for material introduced at trial or filed with dispositive motions. It also recognized that protecting confidential business information and privileged communications can outweigh the public’s interest in access when disclosure could cause competitive injury or reveal protected material.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application. The unredacted document, Document 184, shall remain under seal, and the redacted document, Document 183, shall remain the publicly filed version. The order does not decide whether privilege was waived or resolve the underlying discovery dispute.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.