Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01238/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01238-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PHIGENIX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENENTECH INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01238-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

[Re: ECF 256, 272]

Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file certain documents under 

seal. ECF 256, 272. Defendant filed a motion to seal an exhibit in support of its Motion for 

Summary Judgment of Invalidity Based on Inadequate Written Description and Anticipation. ECF 

256. Plaintiff moved to seal portions of its memorandum regarding test results and a related 

exhibit. ECF 272. For the reasons stated below, the motions are DENIED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 

In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in 

Case 5:15-cv-01238-BLF Document 287 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 

sealable.” Id. 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declaration in support thereof, 

if any. For both these motions, Plaintiff is the party who designated these documents to be 

confidential but the Court finds that Plaintiff has not articulated compelling reasons to seal these 

exhibits or the designated portions. General conclusory assertions regarding confidentiality 

interests are insufficient. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables

below:

A. ECF 256

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of 

Matthew A. Chivvis in support 

of Genentech’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of 

Invalidity Based on Inadequate 

Written Description and 

Anticipation

Plaintiff has not filed a declaration in 

support of sealing this exhibit.

DENIED.

B. ECF 272

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Phigenix, Inc.’s Memorandum 

Regarding Test Results, 

highlighted portions at lines 

13-15 on page 2, lines 3, 8-22, 

27 on page 3; and lines 1-3, 

10-14 on page 4.

Plaintiff contends that the highlighted 

portions contain confidential test data 

obtained for litigation-related testing 

purposes only. However, this is not a 

compelling reason for sealing these

portions of the document. For example, 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated why 

disclosing litigation-related testing results 

could harm Plaintiff’s competitiveness in 

the marketplace. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 

809 F.3d at 1097.

DENIED.

Exhibit A to Phigenix, Inc.’s 

Memorandum Regarding Test

Results

Plaintiff also argues that the entirety of 

this exhibit should be sealed because this 

relates to confidential test data obtained 

for litigation-related testing purposes. 

This reason is insufficient. See id.

DENIED.

Case 5:15-cv-01238-BLF Document 287 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 256, 272 are DENIED. Under Civil 

Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a 

document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to 

seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public 

record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01238-BLF Document 287 Filed 10/26/16 Page 3 of 3