Opperman et al v. Path, Inc. et al

Filing 390

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART REQUEST TO INCLUDE PATENT PROSECUTION BAR IN PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting in part and denying in part 376 Letter Brief RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by Oscar Hernandez; 377 Discovery Letter Brief regarding Protective Order filed by Path, Inc. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARC OPPERMAN, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

PATH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART REQUEST TO
INCLUDE PATENT PROSECUTION
BAR IN PROTECTIVE ORDER
Re: ECF Nos. 376, 377

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
The parties have stipulated to the entry of a protective order in these related actions. ECF

12
13

No. 375. The parties disagree as to whether the stipulated protective order should contain the

14

following patent prosecution bar (“the proposed bar”), which is based on the language used in this

15

district’s model protective order for cases involving trade secrets and highly confidential

16

materials:

17

Absent written consent from the Producing Party, any individual
who receives access to “CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL
ONLY” information of the opposing party shall not be involved in
the prosecution of patents or patent applications relating to the
subject matter of the “CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL
ONLY” information he or she received before any foreign or
domestic agency, including the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“the Patent Office”). For purposes of this paragraph,
“prosecution” includes directly or indirectly drafting, amending,
advising, or otherwise affecting the scope or maintenance of patent
claims. To avoid any doubt, “prosecution” as used in this paragraph
does not include representing a party challenging a patent before a
domestic or foreign agency (including, but not limited to, a reissue
protest, ex parte reexamination, or inter partes reexamination). This
Prosecution Bar shall begin when access to “CONFIDENTIAL” or
“CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” information is
first received by the affected individual and shall end two (2) years
after final termination of this action.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Stipulated Protective Order ¶ 9, ECF No. 375.

27
28

//

Defendants request the inclusion of the proposed bar in the stipulated protective order on

1
2

the grounds that discovery in this action will concern “Defendant’s highly sensitive and

3

confidential technical information, including Defendants’ software design and development,

4

mobile application design and development, database design, and product specifications,” and that

5

there is a risk that people with access to this information will use it to draft patents covering this

6

subject matter. ECF No. 377.
Plaintiffs oppose the inclusion of the proposed bar to the extent that it would apply to them

7
8

on the grounds that (1) the bar is overly broad; (2) patent prosecution bars are not common in

9

consumer class actions; (3) Defendants did not seek the inclusion of a bar in the non-Opperman
actions; and (4) the inclusion of the bar would “inequitably impede” their ability to retain experts

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and prosecute this action. ECF No. 376.

12

I.

13

LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he determination of whether a protective order should include a patent prosecution bar

14

is a matter governed by Federal Circuit law.” In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 605 F.3d

15

1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A party seeking a protective order that includes a provision effecting

16

a prosecution bar has the burden of showing good cause for its issuance. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

17

26(c). The determination of whether a party seeking the inclusion of a prosecution bar requires a

18

two-step inquiry: a court first looks at the risk of inadvertent disclosure, and then it examines the

19

potential injury from such disclosure. See Intel v. VIA, 198 F.R.D. 525, 529-31 (N.D. Cal. 2000).

20

The party seeking a patent prosecution bar first must show that “an unacceptable

21

opportunity for inadvertent disclosure exists.” In re Deutsche, 605 F.3d at 1378. Whether this

22

risk for disclosure exists is determined “by the facts on a counsel-by-counsel basis.” Id. “[T]he

23

counsel-by-counsel determination should turn on the extent to which counsel is involved in

24

‘competitive decisionmaking’ with its client.” Id. The Federal Circuit has described competitive

25

decisionmaking as “a counsel’s activities, association, and relationship with a client that are such

26

as to involve counsel’s advice and participation in any or all of the client’s decisions (pricing,

27

product design, etc.) made in light of similar or corresponding information about a competitor.”

28

U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
2

If the court finds that the requesting party has shown that an unacceptable opportunity for

1
2

inadvertent disclosure exists, then the court must “balance this risk against the potential harm to

3

the opposing party from restrictions imposed on that party’s right to have the benefit of counsel of

4

its choice.” Id. at 380.

5

II.

DISCUSSION

6

A.

The Prosecution Bar As Applied To Defendants

7

As each of the Defendants is a participant in the same industry, the Court concludes that

8

Defendants have established an unacceptable risk of inadvertent disclosure with respect to the

9

disclosure of their confidential technical information to each other. Accordingly, the Court finds
that a patent prosecution bar that applies to each of the Defendants in these related actions is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

appropriate.

12

The Court finds, however, that the language of the proposed bar is not sufficiently specific

13

in describing the kind of information that will trigger the bar, and for this reason, the Court rejects

14

the proposed bar as currently drafted.

15

“In evaluating whether to grant a patent prosecution bar in the first instance, a court must

16

be satisfied that the kind of information that will trigger the bar is relevant to the preparation and

17

prosecution of patent applications before the PTO.” In re Deutsche, 605 F.3d at 1381. Here, the

18

proposed bar describes the information that would trigger the bar as “the subject matter of the

19

‘CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY’” disclosures received by the person to whom

20

the bar would apply. The stipulated protective order, in turn, defines the information that can be

21

designated as “CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” as including marketing and

22

sales data, commercially sensitive information, information relating to future business plans,

23

future product development, commercial agreements, and trade secrets. ECF No. 375 ¶ 2.7.

24

Because the proposed bar would be triggered by information that typically would not be relevant

25

to the prosecution of a patent, such as confidential sales and competitive data, the bar is overly

26

broad as currently drafted. See In re Deutsche, 605 F.3d at 1381 (“[F]inancial data and other

27

sensitive business information, even if deemed confidential, would not normally be relevant to a

28

patent application and thus would not normally be expected to trigger a patent prosecution bar.”).
3

Accordingly, Defendants may file a new version of the patent prosecution bar no later than

1
2

October 31, 2013, that identifies with sufficient specificity the information that would trigger it

3

and that is tailored to apply only to information that is relevant to the preparation or prosecution of

4

patent applications.

5

B.

The Prosecution Bar As Applied To Plaintiffs

6

Defendants argue that the proposed bar should apply to Plaintiffs because, if the bar does

7

not so apply, “Plaintiffs’ expert consultants, none of whom have been identified,” would be able to

8

use Defendants’ confidential information in connection with the prosecution of a patent. ECF No.

9

377 at 2.
Plaintiffs argue that the proposed bar should not apply to them because they are not

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants’ competitors and because the proposed bar would “severely limit the universe of

12

potential experts and consultants” that Plaintiffs could use in this action. ECF No. 376 at 3.

13

Plaintiffs also contend that the proposed bar is unnecessary because Plaintiffs already have agreed

14

to permit Defendants to object to the disclosure of information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL

15

— OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” to Plaintiffs’ experts before any such information is so

16

disclosed. See ECF No. 375 ¶ 7.4.

17

The Court concludes that Defendants have not met their burden to establish that an

18

unacceptable risk of inadvertent disclosure exists with respect to Plaintiffs. First, it is clear from

19

the parties’ submissions that there is no danger that Plaintiffs’ counsel will be involved in patent

20

prosecution activities. Indeed, Defendants admit that “[t]here is no indication that any of

21

plaintiffs’ counsel are members of the patent bar.” ECF No. 377 at 2. Second, though Defendants

22

primarily are concerned with the disclosure of their confidential technical information to

23

Plaintiffs’ experts, Defendants offer no explanation for why the objections procedure delineated in

24

paragraph 7.4 of the stipulated protective order would not sufficiently mitigate the risk that

25

inadvertent disclosures of this information would occur with respect to people who are involved in

26

competitive decisionmaking. Accordingly, Defendants’ request to bind Plaintiffs to the proposed

27

patent prosecution bar is DENIED.

28

///
4

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ request to include a patent prosecution bar in the stipulated protective order

3

that applies to all Defendants in these related actions is GRANTED. The Court rejects the

4

proposed bar as currently drafted, however. Defendants may file a revised proposed patent

5

prosecution bar that identifies with sufficient specificity the information that will trigger the bar

6

and that narrows the scope of the bar to information that is relevant to the prosecution of a patent,

7

as discussed above, no later than October 31, 2013.

8

Defendants’ request to bind Plaintiffs to the patent prosecution bar is DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: October 15, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5