UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-06727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc., Judge Castel was asked to seal licensing-agreement exhibits, but this text shows no ruling.
UrthTech LLC, Aziz Awad, and GOJO Industries, Inc.; the requested ruling concerns public access to exhibits containing terms of their patent-licensing agreement.
What happened
UrthTech LLC and Aziz Awad sued GOJO Industries, Inc., alleging that GOJO breached their patent-licensing agreement. According to GOJO’s letter, the dispute concerns provisions about improvements to licensed patents and products and the inventorship of two pending patent applications.
GOJO asked the court to seal Exhibits A and H to the complaint and replace them with a redacted version. GOJO argued that the redactions would remove irrelevant confidential business terms, such as royalty rates, indemnification provisions, and representations and warranties, while leaving relevant licensing terms public. UrthTech did not oppose the request, according to the letter.
The letter cites Judge P. Kevin Castel’s prior denial of an earlier sealing request without prejudice, but the provided text does not show Judge Castel ruling on this new request. It is therefore unclear whether the exhibits were ultimately sealed.
The detailed version
- UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06727
- P. Castel
- Oct. 4, 2022
Document and procedural posture
The provided text is a letter from GOJO Industries, Inc.’s attorneys to Judge P. Kevin Castel. It requests an order sealing Exhibits A and H to the complaint and replacing the public versions with a redacted exhibit. The text does not contain a court order or state how the court ruled on this request.
The letter says that UrthTech LLC and Aziz Awad filed the complaint on August 8, 2022, alleging that GOJO breached terms of a patent-licensing agreement. The letter describes the allegations as involving provisions governing improvements to licensed patents and products and the inventorship of two pending patent applications. It also says that the licensing agreement designated its terms and existence as confidential information.
Sealing request
GOJO argued that its proposed redactions were narrowly tailored under the standards described in Lugosch v. Pyramid. The proposed redactions would keep public provisions concerning the license grant, improvements, licensed patents, and licensed products, while redacting terms that GOJO characterized as irrelevant to the claims, including royalty rates, indemnification, representations, and warranties.
GOJO asserted that public disclosure of those terms could weaken its negotiating position and create a competitive disadvantage. The letter states that UrthTech did not oppose sealing Exhibits A and H.
Prior ruling and current disposition
The letter refers to Judge Castel’s September 1, 2022 order denying UrthTech’s earlier motion to seal the exhibits without prejudice. The provided text asks the court to grant GOJO’s sealing motion, but it does not show whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved that motion. Accordingly, this document itself contains no identifiable court disposition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.