Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07268/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07268-5/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 8/29/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

AGAMATRIX, INC,

Defendant. /

NO. C 06-7268 JF (RS)

ORDER RE PROTECTIVE

ORDER

By joint letter brief the parties have presented for resolution by the Court a dispute over the

appropriate form of a protective order to be entered in this action. The matter was argued on August

28, 2007. The Court concludes the following:

1. Abbott has shown that disclosure of “highly confidential” information to three of its “inhouse” attorneys is appropriate. The specified attorneys are part of an “Intellectual Property

Litigation group” that is solely responsible for managing and participating in litigation matters on

behalf of Abbott, with no role in competitive decision-making or patent prosecution. Although

Agamatrix insists that Abbott uses its patent portfolio and the litigation process as part of its

competitive strategy such that those lawyers are involved in competitive decision-making, the same

could be said of almost any attorneys, in-house or outside counsel, that regularly represent a client in

multiple matters. 

2. Agamatrix has not shown that disclosure of “highly confidential” information to its sole

Case 5:06-cv-07268-JF Document 54 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

in-house counsel is appropriate. While the resulting hardship to Agamatrix is regrettable, there is no

real dispute that its counsel is involved in all aspects of the company’s operations including matters

implicating competitive decision making. See Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d

1465, 1471 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding it proper to restrict sole general counsel from directly reviewing

opposing party’s trade secrets because counsel would otherwise be “in the ‘untenable position’ of

having to refuse his employer legal advice on a host of contract, employment, and competitive

marketing decisions lest he improperly or indirectly reveal [the] trade secrets.”).

3. Although these conclusions mean that Abbot’s in-house counsel will have access to

highly-confidential materials while in-house counsel for Agamatrix will not, that asymmetry is an

unavoidable consequence of the parties’ respective decisions as to the functions their in-house

counsel perform. That Agamatrix may not be in a position to hire additional in-house attorneys

focused solely on litigation is simply a matter of its circumstances, and does not render the

conclusions reached herein inequitable or unjust. Conversely, it would be inequitable and unjust to

deprive Abbott of the ability to have the specified members of its in-house litigation group review

highly confidential materials just because it is litigating against an entity with fewer resources. This

is not a circumstance where it would be proper for the Court to “level the playing field” to account

for the relative size and wealth of the litigants.

4. The proposed protective order submitted by Abbot appears to preclude Agamatrix’s inhouse counsel from reviewing materials designated as “confidential” and well as those designated

“highly confidential.” That restriction is inappropriate, and the form should be revised accordingly.

Additionally, the proposed protective order submitted by Abbot calls for its in-house attorneys to

attest that they are not “directly” involved in competitive decision-making. That language is overly

equivocal or evasive, and should be replaced with language more like that proposed by Agamatrix. 

The parties shall meet and confer to prepare a revised proposed protective order consistent with this

opinion.

5. Particularly in view of the fact that Agamatrix’s in-house counsel will be restricted from

viewing “highly-confidential” information, the parties are strongly cautioned to exercise extreme

care in so designating any information during the course of this litigation. That designation should

Case 5:06-cv-07268-JF Document 54 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER

C 06-7268 JF (RS)

3

be used as sparingly as possible, and only where clearly warranted. The parties will also be

expected to cooperate and to negotiate in good faith on a case-by-case basis, should specific

instances arise where it might be appropriate to make an exception for certain documents or

categories of information.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-07268-JF Document 54 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER

C 06-7268 JF (RS)

4

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

James W. Cannon , Jr jim.cannon@bakerbotts.com, lisa.bosman@bakerbotts.com

J. Anthony Downs jdowns@goodwinprocter.com

Shannon Harpold Hutcheson shannon.hutcheson@bakerbotts.com

Shirley Sperling Paley spaley@goodwinprocter.com

Nicole Elise Perroton nperroton@goodwinprocter.com, lthomas@goodwinprocter.com

Scott Daniel Powers scott.powers@bakerbotts.com

Jason Rantanen jason.rantanen@mto.com, dolores.reyes@mto.com

Rohit K. Singla singlark@mto.com, steven.uhrig@mto.com

Patrick Shaun Thompson pthompson@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: 8/29/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:06-cv-07268-JF Document 54 Filed 08/29/07 Page 4 of 4