Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-04874
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Novartis v. Genentech, Judge Davila denied without prejudice requests to seal case materials because they lacked specific support and were overbroad.
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., Novartis Pharma AG, and Genentech, Inc.; the ruling concerns their requests to keep portions of court filings confidential.
What happened
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. and Novartis Pharma AG asked to seal parts of their complaints, while Genentech asked to seal parts of its motions to dismiss and supporting papers.
The court said these materials concerned the claims at the center of the case, so the parties had to show specific, compelling reasons for secrecy. The court found that the requests relied on general or speculative statements, covered too much information, treated similar information inconsistently, and included material already publicly available.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied the administrative motions to seal without prejudice. The parties may submit narrower requests supported by proper declarations; otherwise, the court stated that the documents would be unsealed after February 28, 2022, except for the Licensing Agreement.
The detailed version
- Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-04874
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. and Novartis Pharma AG, collectively identified in the opinion as Novartis, sought to seal portions of their original complaint and First Amended Complaint. Genentech, Inc. sought to seal portions of its motions to dismiss those complaints and the supporting papers. The requests were made through administrative motions identified by docket numbers 3, 16, 21, 28, 37, 41, and 42.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the materials the parties sought to seal were more than tangentially related to the claims in the case, the parties had to establish “compelling reasons” supported by specific facts that outweighed the public’s interest in access. The court also applied Civil Local Rule 79-5, which governs requests to seal documents in the Northern District of California.
Reasons for the ruling
The court found several problems with the requests. The supporting declarations often used boilerplate or speculative statements rather than specific facts. The requests were also overbroad: although the Licensing Agreement and excerpts quoting or referring to specific terms might contain confidential business information, the parties did not explain why general descriptions of the agreement or provisions common to patent licenses should be sealed. The requests were inconsistent because similar information was treated differently in different parts of the complaints and other documents. The parties also sought to seal information already available to the public, including citations to cases and a summary of a Supreme Court ruling. The court added that whether a product infringes a patent is not automatically sealable information.
Disposition
Judge Edward J. Davila denied the parties’ administrative motions to seal without prejudice. The parties may renew their requests if they identify each portion they seek to protect and provide competent declarations explaining why the material satisfies the compelling-reasons standard and Civil Local Rule 79-5. The court stated that if the parties did not renew their requests by February 28, 2022, it would order all documents unsealed except the Licensing Agreement.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.