Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01474/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01474-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

*E-FILED 9/13/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CORDIS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

NO. C 02-1474 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING RELIEF

FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

During discovery in this patent infringement action, the parties have produced various

materials subject to a protective order. Plaintiffs Boston Scientific Corporation and Target

Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively “Boston Scientific”) seeks relief from that protective order so that it

can transmit to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office certain documents produced by defendant

Cordis Corporation and designated by it as “confidential.” Cordis does not oppose the motion as to

some of the documents, but contends that three others remain highly confidential and that the motion

should be denied as to those. 

Two of the documents in dispute were previously the subject of a motion wherein Boston

Scientific sought relief from the protective order to permit it to disclose the documents to its expert

witness. In granting that motion, the Court concluded that Cordis had failed to demonstrate that the

documents contained “highly sensitive or competitive material.” Although some of the other

considerations are different in the present motion, Cordis has still failed to show that it would suffer

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 923 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The general background of this action has been described in prior orders and will not be

repeated here.

2

 The motion will therefore be granted as unopposed as to the documents attached as

exhibits B, C, and F – J to the Declaration of Amanda Kessel dated August 4, 2006.

2

harm or prejudice from the disclosure sought by Boston Scientific. The motion therefore will be

granted.

 II. BACKGROUND1

In this action, Cordis has asserted, among other things, that Boston Scientific’s ’415 patent is

invalid in light of alleged prior art embodied in work done by Cordis and/or Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratories prior to issuance of the ’415 patent. Presently pending before the PTO are

two continuation applications related to the ’415 patent–a reissue application on a continuation

patent and a direct continuation of the ’415 patent.

Under PTO guidelines, Boston Scientific is obligated to disclose to the PTO any “material

information” arising from litigation regarding the ’415 patent. Boston Scientific asserts that it does

not believe the documents in dispute in this motion actually are “material” to the continuation

applications (presumably because Boston Scientific contends that Cordis’s invalidity contentions

lack merit), but Boston Scientific wishes to submit the documents to the PTO “out of an abundance

of caution.”

Under PTO regulations, the documents would be submitted under seal, and would become

public only if found to be “important to a reasonable examiner in deciding on patentability.” Cordis

does not dispute that it is reasonable for Boston Scientific to want to disclose the existence of these

materials to the PTO, but it proposes that Boston Scientific do so without providing the actual

documents until and unless the PTO requests them.

As noted above, Cordis does not oppose Boston Scientific’s request for relief with respect to

many of the documents that were the subject of this motion.2

 The documents remaining in dispute

are exhibits A, D, and E to the Kessel declaration. This Court’s order filed June 2, 2004, permitted

disclosure to Boston Scientific’s expert of the documents attached as exhibits A and D. The exhibit

E document was not part of that motion, but contains substantially similar information.

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 923 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

III. DISCUSSION

The documents in dispute are two engineering notebooks and a memorandum all dating to

1995 or earlier and reflecting research and development work Cordis was performing at that time. In

the prior order concerning these material, the Court noted that Cordis had failed “to explain how and

why such information remains ‘sensitive and confidential’ given that it, at least in part, involves a

product that is publicly available and has been on the market for almost two years [now three] and

otherwise constitutes research conducted nearly ten years ago.” June 2, 2004 Order at 4:13-15.

In opposition to the present motion, Cordis attempts to explain that it still considers these

documents highly confidential because they “can contain information that may lead to future

products or that may be used to develop ideas for future products.” Declaration of Mark 

Pomeranz, ¶ 7. Cordis also argues that the documents reflect its “experimental methods, testing

strategies, product development procedures, engineering processes and other confidential

information” that would be useful to a competitor. Id.

The assertion that there may still be information or “ideas” in these materials that may lead to

future products is overly speculative and conclusory. Although Cordis cannot be expected to oppose

this motion by disclosing the details of any “ideas” or future products that it may still be working on,

something more than a bald assertion that there “can” still be confidential information in materials as

dated as these is required. For example, if Cordis offered evidence that it is still using these

documents–or the information contained in the documents, albeit now transferred to other

documents–in ongoing projects, the result could be different. The showing made by Cordis,

however, is insufficient.

Cordis’s alternative argument that the documents may disclose its research methods and

procedures (as opposed to proprietary ideas, data, or other information learned through the research)

is likewise overly conclusory. Cordis has offered no evidence that it employs research methods or

procedures that are unique or even unusual in its field. Again, Cordis would not be expected to

explain the precise details of what it considers to be its special approach, but it has offered no

specific evidence that it has discovered and utilizes methodologies that vary from the standard

scientific methods well known in the art, or that any such methodologies are reflected in the

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 923 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

C 02-1474 JW (RS) 

4

materials at issue.

Finally, Cordis’s proposal that Boston Scientific proceed by first alerting the PTO to the

existence of these materials is rejected as impractical. Even if Boston Scientific were to withhold

the actual documents, it likely would need relief from the protective order to describe them in

sufficient detail to permit the PTO to judge the materiality of the information. Certainly to do its

work, the PTO is entitled to a full and complete record and need not be put to the task of speculating

on whether it needs more information. Finally, if the PTO were required to request the materials, all

that will have been achieved by the two-step process is delay. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Boston Scientific’s motion for relief from the protective order is GRANTED. The

documents may be submitted to the PTO under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 923 Filed 09/13/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

C 02-1474 JW (RS) 

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Hugh A. Abrams habrams@sidley.com

Edward V. Anderson evanderson@sidley.com, dhanaman@sidley.com

Susan E. Bower sbower@sidley.com

Marc A. Cavan mcavan@sidley.com,

Teague I. Donahey tdonahey@sidley.com, sheila.brown@sidley.com

J. Anthony Downs jdowns@goodwinprocter.com,

Julie Lynn Fieber jfieber@flk.com

Michael Francis Kelleher mkelleher@flk.com,

Amanda Marie Kessel akessel@goodwinprocter.com

Stephanie Pauline Koh skoh@sidley.com,

Tracy J. Phillips tphillips@sidley.com, grodriguez@sidley.com

Matthew T. Powers mpowers@sidley.com, sheila.brown@sidley.com

Patrick E. Premo ppremo@fenwick.com

David T. Pritikin dpritikin@sidley.com

Lisa Anne Schneider lschneider@sidley.com

Roland Schwillinski rschwillinski@goodwinprocter.com,

Georgia K. Van Zanten gvanzanten@sidley.com, dhanaman@sidley.com

Paul F. Ware , JrPC pware@goodwinprocter.com,

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 9/13/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/BAK 

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 923 Filed 09/13/06 Page 5 of 5