Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENENTECH, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INSMED INCORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5429 CW (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO PERMIT DISCLOSURE

OF TEST DATA AND RESULTS

DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL

(Docket No. 276)

Defendants’ motion came on for hearing on February 8, 2006. Having considered the papers

filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the argument of counsel, and good cause

appearing therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion.

The Court notes at the outset, that Defendants have, in the context of this motion, agreed to

permit Plaintiffs to have the same access to portions of Insmed’s laboratory notebooks that it is

seeking by way of their motion with respect to Tercica’s testing of Insmed’s products. The issue is

whether Defendants may have access to data and test results Plaintiffs provided in their initial expert

reports on January 27, 2006 relating to whether Insmed’s DNA sequence meets the hybridization

requirements of the ‘287 patent.

The data and test result in question pertain primarily to Insmed’s DNA sequencing, not

Tercica’s. Thus it is Insmed’s alleged trade secrets that are primarily at issue in these documents. 

On the other hand, there may be some sensitive and proprietary information in the testing data such

as other DNA sequencing selected by Tercica or its testing procedures. Balanced against this is the

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 297 Filed 02/09/06 Page 1 of 2
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

need for Insmed to respond to Plaintiffs’ expert report. In order to respond to the expert report,

Defendants are entitled to underlying data which informed the opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts.

As noted at the hearing, the Court concludes that the testing data and result shall be disclosed

to Insmed employees and experts under protective order as part of this litigation. The parties shall

meet and confer and agree on the individuals representing Insmed entitled to see this data in order to

safeguard the Plaintiffs’ security concerns while permitting Defendants a fair opportunity to respond

to the expert reports. 

Dr. Mascarenhas, who is not an expert in this case but a percipient witness who conducted

the initial testing several years ago, shall not have access to Plaintiffs’ testing data. He is the head of

five biotechnology companies, one of which provides DNA sequencing services. Balanced against

the risk of competitive harm to Plaintiffs is the fact that as a percipient witness to testing occurring

years before, there is no substantial need to show the new testing data to Dr. Mascarenhas. 

Defendants have their own experts to respond to the new testing data, and if necessary in preparing

their rebuttal, they can obtain information from Dr. Mascarenhas about his testing efforts. Dr.

Mascarenhas is not qualified to testify about Plaintiffs’ testing procedure. Nor does he need the new

data to prepare his testimony at trial. His testimony will focus on his own testing years before, and

cross-examination will be limited to the scope of the direct. Defendants have failed to demonstrate

any substantial reason why Dr. Mascarenhas needs this new testing data.

The parties agreed at the hearing that in light of the Court’s ruling, there is no need to alter

the expert report disclosure schedule.

This order disposes of Docket No. 276.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 297 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 2