Fibrogen, Inc. v. Hangzhou Andao Pharmaceutical LTD.

Background

FibroGen sought to seal portions of its complaint and several documents filed in connection with motions to dismiss and sanctions. The requested material included the codenames, development dates, number, and chemical names of allegedly misappropriated compounds; references to patents; and portions or entire copies of employee confidentiality agreements and termination certifications involving Dr. Dong Liu and Dr. Shaojiang Deng.

Legal standard

The court applied Civil Local Rule 79-5 and the common-law right of public access to judicial records. For records more than tangentially related to the underlying claims—including complaints and materials connected to dispositive motions—a party must show compelling reasons for sealing. That requires specific factual support showing likely harm and explaining why a narrower alternative would not work. Materials only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed on a lower good-cause showing.

Rulings

The court denied FibroGen’s requests to seal the identified portions of its complaint concerning the compounds and employment agreements. It also denied requests to seal the entire confidentiality agreements and termination certifications for Dr. Liu and Dr. Deng. FibroGen’s requests to seal related material in the defendants’ motion to dismiss, FibroGen’s opposition to that motion, the defendants’ reply, and the sanctions motion and supporting declaration were also denied.

The court found that FibroGen’s statements about competitive harm from revealing compound codenames, synthesis or development dates, and the number of compounds were conclusory and lacked particular facts or examples. It found no compelling reason to seal chemical names and references to patents because the relevant compound information had been in the public domain in patents since 2018. The court also ruled that the mere confidentiality of employee agreements did not establish a reason to seal them, and FibroGen did not identify specific proprietary or business information whose disclosure would cause harm. Sealing those agreements would also limit the public’s ability to understand the court’s rulings on the breach-of-contract claims.

The court directed the parties to file public versions of all documents for which sealing had been denied within seven days of the order. This order concerned court-record access and sealing; it did not resolve the underlying claims.