Plaintiff sought an order preventing access to its protected materials by a specified individual.
My what a lovely courthouse. Protective order and copyright infringement and damages just seem to fit somehow.
Most protective order fights center on source code review and prosecution/acquisition bars. The latter was the subject here.
Consistent with prior similar orders, the order in this case provided for a different code review process during the pandemic.
Protective orders are like James Bond’s suits. They’re tailored, but the judge usually has some rules that you can expect will be present – especially on code review.
Although it’s identified as a FAQ, it really is a listing of some recent telephonic rulings on issues in patent cases, with strong emphasis on semiconductor cases. So your mileage (like your case’s facts) may differ.
Another data point on protective orders from River City, this time dealing with source code review.
You don’t see a lot of cases passing on appropriate restrictions on prosecution and acquisition bars in protective orders. This order presents the right set of facts to make the issues relevant.
An issue that sometimes comes up in negotiating protective orders is whether an acquisition bar should be included, i.e. a prohibition of counsel who see confidential documents from prosecuting patents in a certain field. In this case the magistrate judge declined to adopt the proposed acquisition bar, and the defendant appealed that decision to the district judge.
This protective order opinion addresses the question of disclosure of certain information to a specified in-house counsel. It provides one of the relatively rare examples of a court resolving protective order disputes in an opinion which explains why the requested language was or was not adopted. (With dreadnought-sized footnotes).