Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-05502
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Regeneron v. Novartis, Judge Halpern granted the application, keeping a redacted transcript public and the unredacted version sealed.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Vetter Pharma International GMBH, whose confidential agreement terms remain protected from public disclosure; the public may access only the redacted transcript. Novartis and Vetter did not oppose the application.
What happened
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the court to seal the unredacted transcript of a May 7, 2025 hearing and publicly file a redacted version. The transcript included nonpublic terms of a development agreement between Regeneron and Vetter. Novartis and Vetter did not oppose the request.
Regeneron said the proposed redactions were narrowly limited to confidential, commercially sensitive information and that disclosure could harm Regeneron and Vetter in future negotiations. It argued that this potential competitive harm outweighed the public interest in seeing those specific terms.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application. The redacted transcript, Document 238, will remain the publicly filed version, while the unredacted transcript, Document 233, will remain under seal.
The detailed version
- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG · No. 7:20-cv-05502
- Philip Halpern
- Aug. 1, 2025
Background
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a letter motion asking the court to seal the unredacted transcript of proceedings held on May 7, 2025, and to file a redacted version publicly. Regeneron stated that the transcript contained information about an agreement between Regeneron and Vetter Pharma International GMBH. The agreement had been produced in the case and designated confidential or for outside counsel’s eyes only under the parties’ amended protective order. Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis Technology LLC, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., and Vetter did not oppose the motion.
Request and asserted basis
Regeneron argued that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential and commercially sensitive information, including nonpublic terms negotiated in the development agreement with Vetter. It asserted that public disclosure could cause competitive harm to Regeneron and Vetter in future negotiations with other parties. Regeneron also argued that the public would receive no benefit from disclosure of those specific terms and that the competitive harm would outweigh the public’s interest in access.
Ruling
The court’s order states: “Application granted.” The redacted transcript, Document 238, shall remain the publicly filed version, and the unredacted transcript, Document 233, shall remain under seal. Judge Philip M. Halpern therefore granted the sealing application without changing the stated public status of the redacted transcript.
Effect
The ruling limits public access to the specified information in the May 7, 2025 hearing transcript. It does not decide the underlying claims in the case. The provided materials do not include a separate explanation from the court beyond the order granting the application.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.