From Araujo v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc., decided Thursday by Judge John Cronan (S.D.N.Y.):
Plaintiff William Araujo filed a motion to seal the Court’s Opinion and Order construing two terms in one of the claims of his patent….
Under “the First Amendment and the common law,” the public has a “presumption of access to judicial records.” The Second Circuit has broadly defined a “judicial document” as an “item that is relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” A document is relevant to the performance of the judicial function “if it would reasonably have the tendency to influence a district court’s ruling on a motion or in the exercise of its supervisory powers.” The public has a presumption of access to these documents “so that the federal courts have a measure of accountability and so that the public may have confidence in the administration of justice.” …
Plaintiff concedes that the Opinion is a judicial document, as it obviously is…. [A] strong presumption of public access attaches to the Opinion.
Plaintiff argues that presumption is weak because this case is a “civil controversy between private individuals” which has not sparked “interest on the part of news media.” But this is also true of most civil litigation cases. The fact that Plaintiff’s case has not received significant media attention does not detract from the Opinion’s role in the Court’s exercise of its Article III power. Further, there may be a public interest in the Opinion as its discussion of the claim construction legal standard and subsequent analysis could serve as helpful authority for litigants and judges in future cases….
Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden “to articulate a compelling countervailing rationale” for sealing the Opinion “against this strong presumption of public access.” Plaintiff argues that he “should not be hampered by the record created in this Court” should he choose to file new infringement actions against other defendants, and expresses concern that the Opinion could “foreclose[ ]” the possibility of settlement “should the new defendants be [able to] access” it. But “[t]he natural desire of parties to shield prejudicial information contained in judicial records cannot be accommodated by courts without seriously undermining the tradition of an open judicial system.” …
The opinion that plaintiff sought interpreted the claims in plaintiff’s patent for “exercise devices intended to strengthen abdominal muscles by enabling a technique that resembles a reverse sit-up.” Here’s an excerpt from the plaintiff’s argument, which the court rejected:
Following a Markman [patent claim construction] hearing, the Court rendered a
Claim Construction Opinion and Order on June 29, 2022 under Document No. 93…. In light of that ruling, plaintiff William Araujo abandoned the pursuit of his Complaint…. [But] Plaintiff still has the option to pursue infringement actions against other defendants before the term of his patent expires ….
In any new infringement action plaintiff may file[,] the possibility of a settlement short of a Markman hearing is foreclosed should the new defendants be to able access Document
No. 93. Needless to say settlement of litigation is a high priority for all Courts.
In his earlier case that was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, plaintiff was able to receive a settlement before a Markman hearing. This will assuredly not happen again if Document No. 93 is not sealed. Plaintiff will then be faced with the unsavory options of collaterally attacking Document No. 93 or seeking its collateral review on appeal.
Such choices will place unnecessary burdens on plaintiff, his adversaries and t he District and Court of Appeals. It will not serve the best interests of all concerned….
Unsurprisingly, the court didn’t view this as a sufficient basis for concealing its opinion from the public.
The post Patent Law Opinion Can’t Be Sealed to Avoid Hurting Plaintiff’s Future Similar Lawsuits appeared first on Reason.com.
