Intellectual Property Law

Judge Stark: Third party motion for access to confidential documents DENIED

By Karen E. Keller, Andrew A. Lundgren et al.

Judge Stark recently considered third party Anvik Corporation?s motion for a limited intervention to obtain copies of evidence in LG Display Co., Ltd. v. AU Optronics Corp, et al., C.A. No. 06-726-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 29, 2010). Anvik filed a patent infringement action in the Southern District of New York against the parties to this litigation in the District of Delaware. Anvik contended that certain documents filed under seal were relevant to its claims in the New York case involving inducement of importation of the same products at issue in Delaware. Id. at 1. LG and AUO opposed Anvik?s motion, primarily because granting Anvik?s motion would modify the hotly contested Protective Order in the Delaware case. Id. Moreover, AUO argued that it had already produced documents from the Delaware case that overlapped with the New York action and Anvik had not identified what other information it seeks. Id. at 2.

Judge Stark granted Anvik?s motion to intervene, but ultimately found that Anvik had ?not demonstrated that modification of the Protective Order is warranted.? Id. at 5-6. ?The parties? reliance on the Protective Order weighs in favor of the Court preserving the confidentiality of the underlying documents sought by Anvik. . . . Anvik has not demonstrated that the disclosure of the confidential materials would aid the discovery process in the New York action[.]? Id. at 6. In addition, Judge Stark disregarded Anvik?s argument that it was entitled to the documents under the public right of access to judicial records because such argument was argued for the first time in Anvik?s reply brief. Id. at 7.

LG Display Co., Ltd. v. AU Optronics Corp, et al., C.A. No. 06-726-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 29, 2010)

Full post as published by Delaware IP Law Blog on December 30, 2010 (boomark / email).