Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01411/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01411-17/pdf.json

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

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUHN OIL TOOL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COOPER CAMERON CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:05-CV-01411-OWW-NEW (TAG)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO MODIFY THE

PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc 78)

DATE: June 25, 2007

TIME: 11:00 a.m.

CTRM: Bakersfield U.S. Bankruptcy

On April 19, 2007, Plaintiff Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. (“Duhn”) filed a Motion to Modify

(Docket No. 78) the August 11, 2006, Protective Order (Docket No. 37). The parties submitted

a Joint Statement regarding the Motion to Modify on June 20, 2007 (Docket No. 92), and this

Court held a hearing on June 25, 2007.

Plaintiff Duhn asserts that the Protective Order requires modification in order to serve

its intended purpose and accomplish the function of the “prosecution bar” provision. Duhn

requests that the Protective Order be modified by separating the Attorneys’ Eyes Only

(“AEO”) designation into two separate designations -- one designation for sensitive material

relevant to patent prosecution, and another for confidential financial information which Duhn

asserts is unrelated to patent prosecution.

Defendant Cameron asserts that the “prosecution bar” provision of the Court’s

Protective Order does not distinguish between financial information and technical information

related to the technology in dispute, because the basis for precluding Plaintiff’s patent

prosecution counsel from access to both of these types of confidential information is the same.

Defendant Cameron asserts that a party’s confidential financial information can be used,

inadvertently or otherwise, in a patent prosecution counsel’s “competitive decisionmaking”

advice to clients in directing a client to seek patent protection in areas where the financial data

points them.

Having reviewed the parties’ arguments set forth in the Joint Statement and at the

hearing held on June 25th, this Court finds that Plaintiff Duhn has not shown good cause to

warrant the requested modification of the Protective Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff Duhn’s

Motion to Modify the Protective Order (Doc. 78) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01411-MLH-GSA Document 100 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 1