Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 16, 2019

Finjan, LLC. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:17-cv-00072
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
9
Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Finjan v. Cisco, Judge Freeman granted Finjan’s motion to seal specified filings and exhibits containing Cisco proprietary information.

Who this affects

Finjan, Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., competitors who might use the information, and the public’s access to the specified court filings.

What happened

In Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., Finjan asked to seal portions of its opposition to Cisco’s motion to strike Finjan’s expert reports on infringement and related exhibits.

The court found compelling reasons to seal the material because it disclosed information about Cisco’s proprietary products that competitors could use to Cisco’s disadvantage. The court also found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.

The court granted Finjan’s administrative motion to seal at ECF 322. Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the specified portions or documents sealed and stated that no further action was necessary.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Finjan, LLC. v. Cisco Systems Inc. · No. 5:17-cv-00072
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Sept. 16, 2019

Background

Finjan, Inc. filed an administrative motion seeking to seal portions of briefing and exhibits submitted with its opposition to Cisco Systems Inc.’s motion to strike Finjan’s expert reports on infringement.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the materials concerned motions more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, the party seeking sealing had to show compelling reasons that outweighed public access. The court also stated that sealing must be limited to material that is legally protectable, such as confidential or trade-secret information, and that requests must be narrowly tailored.

Court’s analysis

After reviewing Finjan’s motion and the supporting declaration from the designating party, the court found compelling reasons to seal the identified material. The court concluded that public filing could reveal the identification, organization, or operation of Cisco’s proprietary products and that competitors could use the information to map proprietary product features. The court also found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.

Ruling

The court granted Finjan’s motion to seal at ECF 322. It granted sealing for highlighted portions of Finjan’s opposition and granted sealing for the entire documents identified in the motion, including a chart, letters, deposition excerpts, technical documents, a presentation, and expert reports. Judge Beth Labson Freeman stated that no further action was necessary. This order addressed the sealing request, not the underlying motion to strike or the patent-infringement dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.