Finjan, LLC. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Background

Finjan, Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. filed administrative motions asking the court to seal materials submitted in connection with Cisco’s motion to strike portions of Finjan’s amended expert report concerning infringement of Patent No. 7,647,633. The motions were Docket Nos. 491, 507, and 523.

Legal standard

The court explained that court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. The standard for sealing depends on how closely the materials relate to the merits of the case. Here, the court applied the “good cause” standard because the materials were submitted with a discovery-related motion rather than a motion addressing the merits.

Ruling

After considering the motions, supporting declarations, the Declaration of Nicole Grigg, and the filings, the court found good cause and granted all three motions.

For Docket No. 491, the court granted Cisco’s request to seal specified highlighted portions of its motion to strike and granted requests to seal entire documents or specified portions of several exhibits. The court identified the materials as containing confidential technical information, source code, information about accused Cisco products, and analysis by Finjan’s expert. The court stated that public disclosure could harm Cisco and that the redactions were narrowly tailored.

For Docket No. 507, the court granted Finjan’s request to seal specified highlighted portions of its opposition to Cisco’s motion to strike and its supporting declaration. It also granted requests to seal entire documents or exhibits containing infringement contentions, expert-report materials, deposition testimony, and related redlined edits. The court stated that these materials contained confidential information about Cisco products, including their design, operation, and source code, and that public disclosure could cause competitive harm to Cisco.

For Docket No. 523, the court granted Cisco’s request to seal specified highlighted portions of its reply in support of the motion to strike and granted the request to seal the entire attached deposition transcript. The court found that the materials contained confidential technical information, source code, and deposition testimony concerning the structure, function, and operation of accused Cisco products. The order did not decide Cisco’s motion to strike or the patent-infringement issues.