令和5年度政策評価等の実施状況等に関する報告
「令和5年度公害等調整委員会年次報告」の公表
令和6年度過疎地域持続的発展支援交付金の交付決定
デジタル空間における情報流通の健全性確保の在り方に関する検討会(第22回)開催案内 ※ワーキンググループ(第26回)合同開催
令和6年能登半島地震に係る被害状況等について(第105報)
松本総務大臣閣議後記者会見の概要
第8回統計作成プロセス部会
第720回 入札監理小委員会(開催案内)
経験者選考採用試験(事務系/技術系・課長補佐級/係長級・総合職相当)情報を掲載しました
EFF Appeals Order Denying Public Access to Patent Filings
It’s bad enough when a patent holder enforcing their rights in court try to exclude the public from those fights. What’s even worse is when courts endorse these secrecy tactics, just as a federal court hearing an EFF unsealing motion ruled in May.
EFF continues to push for greater transparency in the case, Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., and is asking a federal court of appeals to reverse the decision. A successful appeal will open this case to the public, and help everyone better understand patent disputes that are filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Secrecy in patent litigation is an enduring problem, and EFF has repeatedly intervened in lawsuits involving patent claims to uphold the public’s right to access court records. And in this case, the secrecy issues are heightened by the parties and the court believing that they can jointly agree to keep entire records under seal, without ever having to justify the secrecy.
This case is a dispute between a semiconductor products provider, Entropic, and one of the nation's largest media companies, Charter, which offers cable television and internet service to millions of people. Entropic alleged that Charter infringed its patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,223,775; 8,284,690; 8,792,008; 9,210,362; 9,825,826; and 10,135,682) which cover cable modem technology.
Charter has argued it had a license defense to the patent claims based on the industry-leading cable data transmission standard, Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS). The argument could raise a core legal question in patent law: when is a particular patent “essential” to a technical standard and thus encumbered by licensing commitments?
But so many of the documents filed in court about this legal argument are heavily redacted, making it difficult to understand. EFF filed to intervene and unseal these documents in March. EFF’s motion in part targeted a practice that is occurring in many patent disputes in the Texas district court, whereby parties enter into agreements, known as protective orders. These agreements govern how parties will protect information they exchange during the fact-gathering portion of a case.
Under the terms of the model protective order created by the court, the parties can file documents they agree are secret under seal without having to justify that such secrecy overrides the public’s right to access court records.
Despite federal appellate courts repeatedly ruling that protective orders cannot short-circuit the public’s right of access, the district court ruled that the documents EFF sought to unseal could remain secret precisely because the parties had agreed. Additionally, the district court ruled that EFF had no right to seek to unseal the records because it filed the motion to intervene and make the records public four months after the parties had settled.
EFF is disappointed by the decision and strongly disagrees. Notably, the opinion does not cite any legal authority that allows parties to stipulate to keep their public court fights secret. As said above, many courts have ruled that such agreements are anathema to court transparency.
Moreover, the court’s ruling that EFF could not even seek to unseal the documents in the first place sets a dangerous precedent. As a result many court dockets, including those with significant historic and newsworthy materials, can become permanently sealed merely because the public did not try to intervene and unseal records while the case was open.
That outcome turns the public’s right of access to court records on its head: it requires the public to be extremely vigilant about court secrecy and punishes them for not knowing about sealed records. Yet the entire point of the presumption of public access is that judges and litigants in the cases are supposed to protect the public’s right to open courts, as not every member of the public has the time and resources to closely monitor court proceedings and hire a lawyer to enforce their public rights should they be violated.
EFF looks forward to vindicating the public’s right to access records on appeal.
Related Cases: Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc.