AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC

Background

AGIS Software Development LLC filed an administrative motion to seal portions of its opposition to Google LLC’s motion for summary judgment and related exhibits. The documents concerned infringement and invalidity of the patents involved in the case.

The court had previously denied AGIS’s sealing motion and directed AGIS to refile it by September 4, 2023. AGIS did not refile. The court later recognized that its earlier order might have been unclear and reconsidered that ruling.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the materials were more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, AGIS had to show compelling reasons for sealing them. The court said that standard requires specific reasons showing that disclosure would cause harm, rather than broad or unsupported allegations.

Reasons for sealing

AGIS sought to seal material involving:

- Source code and technical information about products accused of infringement that Google had designated highly confidential; - Confidential settlement communications and negotiations; - Confidential business information; and - Technical functionality of the accused products.

Google did not object to sealing any of the documents identified in AGIS’s response. The court found compelling reasons to seal the identified portions because disclosure could reveal confidential source code, technical information, business information, settlement discussions, and witness testimony. The court also found that disclosure of settlement information could harm the parties if competitors learned the identity and nature of those discussions.

Ruling

The court granted AGIS’s administrative motion to seal at ECF No. 451. The order granted sealing for the specified highlighted portions of AGIS’s response and for the listed exhibits, many of which were sealed in their entirety. The court stated that the request was not narrowly tailored because it sought to seal several documents in full. It also noted that AGIS should have filed separate motions for its own material and Google’s material, but the court overlooked that failure for this motion.

The court warned that future failures to comply with the standing order could result in denial of a sealing motion with prejudice. That warning did not change the court’s ruling on ECF No. 451, which was granted. The order addressed sealing only and did not decide the parties’ motion for summary judgment or the underlying patent issues.