Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:17-cv-05659
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Finjan v. Juniper, Judge Alsup denied Finjan’s motion to seal patent-valuation and licensing material, ordering disclosure after appeals.
Finjan’s request to keep patent-valuation and licensing material sealed was denied; Juniper, the parties’ third-party negotiation partners, and the public are affected by the eventual disclosure, subject to the stay for appeals.
What happened
In Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., the court reconsidered Finjan’s request to keep parts of an earlier order about patent valuation and licensing negotiations private. That earlier order concerned expert evidence before a patent-infringement trial.
Finjan argued that disclosure could weaken its position in future patent-licensing negotiations and discourage future negotiations. The court required especially strong reasons to keep the material sealed because the order significantly affected the case and because the public has a strong interest in understanding how patent rights affect commerce. The court also noted that no third party had appeared to assert a confidentiality interest.
Judge Alsup denied the motion to seal. The material will be disclosed, but the order is stayed until 28 days after all appeals are finished.
The detailed version
- Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc. · No. 3:17-cv-05659
- William Alsup
- Feb. 10, 2021
Background
Before a December 2018 patent-infringement trial, the court issued an order addressing the parties’ damages experts. It excluded Finjan’s damages expert because the expert relied on a late infringement theory, but rejected a challenge to Juniper’s opposing expert. In a companion order, the court denied Finjan’s request to seal references to its patent valuation and licensing activity.
The Federal Circuit later vacated and sent back the sealing order for more specific findings. It directed the court to balance Finjan’s and its third-party negotiation partners’ interests against the public interest in disclosure. Finjan renewed its motion to seal. The opinion states that the third parties had waived their interests and that Juniper had left the evaluation to the court.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected Finjan’s argument that the material could be sealed under the less demanding “good cause” standard because the Daubert order was technically nondispositive. A Daubert order concerns whether expert testimony may be used. The court explained that the relevant question is whether the material is more than tangentially related to the case’s merits. Because the damages-expert ruling significantly affected the issues in the case, the court required “compelling reasons” that outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Finjan argued that revealing its patent valuation and licensing negotiations could harm its leverage in future negotiations and discourage potential negotiators who were concerned about confidentiality. The court accepted, for purposes of its analysis, that disclosure might hamper future licensing negotiations. It nevertheless concluded that Finjan had little right to keep its patent-assertion activities from public scrutiny, especially because patent rights arise from a government grant and can affect commerce. The court also emphasized the public interest in understanding patent licensing and the amounts patent holders seek in infringement litigation.
Ruling
The court held that Finjan had not shown a compelling interest that outweighed the public interest in disclosure. It DENIED Finjan’s motion to seal. The order is stayed until 28 days after all appeals of the order are exhausted, after which the material is to be unsealed. Judge William Alsup signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.