Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 17, 2023

DoseLogix, LLC v. Reflex Medical Corp.

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:21-cv-01275
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In DoseLogix v. Reflex Medical, Judge Foster granted the parties’ motion to keep specified filings under seal.

Who this affects

DoseLogix, LLC and Reflex Medical Corp. received continued protection for the specified filings, while the public will not have access to those filings because the Clerk was directed to keep them under seal.

What happened

DoseLogix, LLC and Reflex Medical Corp. jointly asked the court to keep certain filings under seal. The filings related to motions about patent infringement, expert testimony, and summary judgment.

The court noted that District Judge Eric C. Tostrud had denied those underlying motions without prejudice after staying the case pending patent reexamination proceedings. The sealed filings therefore had played no role in deciding the case, and public versions with targeted redactions had been filed when practical.

Judge Dulce J. Foster found that the parties’ interest in protecting sensitive business information outweighed the public’s limited interest in accessing the filings. The court granted the joint motion for continued sealing in full and directed the Clerk to keep the listed filings under seal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
DoseLogix, LLC v. Reflex Medical Corp. · No. 0:21-cv-01275
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Nov. 17, 2023

Background

DoseLogix, LLC and Reflex Medical Corp. filed a joint motion asking the court to continue sealing documents filed in connection with several motions. Those motions included DoseLogix’s motion for summary judgment on specified patent claims, motions concerning expert testimony, and Reflex Medical’s motion for summary judgment and exclusion of testimony.

The court explained that the underlying motions had been denied without prejudice by District Judge Eric C. Tostrud after the parties jointly moved to stay the case pending the outcome of reexamination proceedings. As a result, the documents at issue had not played a role in the court’s exercise of its constitutional decision-making authority.

Analysis

The court recognized a common-law right of public access to judicial records, but explained that the right is not absolute. It weighed the public’s interest in accessing the filings against the parties’ confidentiality interests. Filings connected to summary-judgment motions receive a stronger presumption of public access, but the court found that the documents had little value for monitoring the federal courts because the related motions had been denied without prejudice. The filings appeared to contain sensitive business information, and public versions with narrowly tailored redactions had been filed when practicable.

Order

Judge Dulce J. Foster concluded that the parties’ confidentiality interests outweighed the public’s minimal interest in accessing the documents. The court granted the Joint Motion for Continued Sealing in full and directed the Clerk to keep ECF Nos. 84, 86, 88, 96, 99, 99-1 through 99-10, 109, 112, 115, 122, 125, and 125-1 under seal. This order addressed access to the filings; it did not decide the underlying patent or expert-testimony motions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.