Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.

Filing 656

ORDER DENYING 645 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2021)

Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 656 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

No. C 17-5659 WHA

v.
JUNIPER NETWORK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SEAL DAUBERT ORDER

15
16

A Daubert order on the eve of a patent-infringement trial in December 2018 excluded

17

patent owner’s damages expert for reliance on a belated infringement theory but rejected the

18

challenge to defendants’ counter expert (Dkt. No. 283). A companion order denied Finjan’s

19

request to seal references to its patent valuation and licensing activity in the latter half of that

20

order (Dkt. No. 284). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the

21

order for more particularized findings, specifically a conscientious balancing of the interests of

22

Finjan and its third-party negotiation partners against the public interest in disclosure. 826

23

Fed. App’x 928 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Finjan moves anew to seal the material. The third parties

24

have waived their interests, and Juniper has abandoned the Court to evaluate the matter alone.

25

The material will be disclosed. To begin, Finjan mistakenly cites Center for Auto Safety

26

v. Chrysler Group, LLC for the proposition that the “nondispositive” Daubert order might be

27

sealed merely for good, as opposed to compelling, cause. Not so. Were Finjan to read further

28

along it would have seen that our court of appeals explicitly rejected a mechanical

Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 656 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 3

1

“dispositive” versus “nondispositive” distinction in deciding what level of scrutiny to impose

2

on sealing requests. Rather, the boundary between requiring compelling or good cause is

3

“whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Our court of

4

appeals specifically noted Daubert orders as “technically nondispositive” matters which

5

nonetheless “significantly affect the disposition of the issues in the case.” Indeed, the present

6

Daubert order on damages experts presaged Finjan’s ultimate failure on damages at trial (Dkt.

7

No. 393 at 6–8). Compelling reasons, which outweigh the public interest in disclosure, will be

8

required to seal the material at issue here. 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–1101 (9th Cir. 2016).

9

Finjan asserts that disclosure of its patent valuation and licensing negotiations will
compromise its leverage in future negotiations and dissuade future negotiants wary of

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

confidentiality concerns. Aside from the fact that no third-party has appeared to assert any

12

confidentiality interest, despite ample opportunity to do so, and even accepting that disclosure

13

may hamper future patent-licensing negotiations, Finjan has little (if any) right to bury its

14

patent-assertion activities from public scrutiny. As the undersigned recently explained:

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

The United States Supreme Court “has long recognized that the
grant of a patent is a matte[r] involving public rights.” A patent is
not a private agreement between private parties. Rather, as a
creature of statute, the national government grants the patent in
derogation of the usual free flow of goods and ideas.
*

*

*

Because [a patentee’s] rights flow directly from this governmentconferred power to exclude, the public in turn has a strong interest
in knowing the full extent of the terms and conditions involved in
[the patentee’s] exercise of its patent rights and in seeing the extent
to which [the patentee’s] exercise of the government grant affects
commerce.
*

*

*

The impact of a patent on commerce is an important consideration
of public interest. One consideration is the issue of marking by
licensees. Another is recognition of the validity (or not) of the
inventions. Another is in setting a reasonable royalty. In the latter
context, patent holders tend to demand in litigation a vastly bloated
figure in “reasonably royalties” compared to what they have
earned in actual licenses of the same or comparable patents. There
is a public need to police this litigation gimmick via more public
access. We should never forget that every license has force and
2

Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 656 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 of 3

1

effect only because, in the first place, a patent constitutes a public
grant of exclusive rights.

2

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. C 18-00358 WHA, 2020 WL 7626518, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal.

3

Dec. 22, 2020) (citations omitted).

4

Finjan offers no compelling interest that outweighs the public’s own compelling interest

5

in disclosure. The motion is DENIED. This order shall be stayed until 28 days after all appeals

6

of this order are exhausted. The parties shall please advise the Court when this period has run

7

and remind the Court to effect the unsealing.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: February 10, 2021

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3