Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case involves a dispute between Lashify, Inc. and Pro Lash, Inc. (collectively with other defendants) over alleged unauthorized copying of Lashify's DIY luxury lash extension system. The court granted a joint motion to amend the protective order, adopting Lashify's proposed version which includes a Prosecution Bar to prevent misuse of trade secrets during patent proceedings. The court found Pro Lash's requested restrictions on disclosure were unduly burdensome.
Issues
The court evaluated whether to include a patent prosecution bar in the protective order and determined that Lashify's proposed restrictions are sufficient to address the risks of disclosing proprietary information, while finding Pro Lash's more burdensome restrictions disproportionate to the actual risks. The court adopted Lashify's less restrictive version of the protective order.
Holdings
The court grants the Motion to amend the Protective Order to include a Prosecution Bar, adopting Lashify's proposed restrictions as sufficiently tailored to address risks.
Remedies
The court grants the Motion to amend the Protective Order and adopts Lashify's proposed Protective Order as the operative order in this matter. Lashify must file a final version of its proposed Protective Order no later than five days after the date of this Order.
Legal Principles
The court evaluates whether there is good cause for a patent prosecution bar by balancing the risk of inadvertent disclosure of confidential information against the potential harm to a party's right to be represented by preferred counsel. The determination of whether to include such a bar in a protective order is governed by Federal Circuit law.
Precedent Name
- In re Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas
- Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC
- Lifetime Products, Inc. v. Logan Outdoor Products, LLC
- Iconfind, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
Cited Statute
United States Code, Title 28
Judge Name
- Howard C. Nielson, Jr
- Cecilia M. Romero
Passage Text
- the court GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS that Lashify's proposed Protective Order is the operative Protective Order in this matter. Accordingly, Lashify must file a final version of its proposed Protective Order no later than five days after the date of this Order.
- Pro Lash asserts that its proposed restrictions are justified as the information in this case is 'similar to restrictions often placed on source code' but that their risk is even higher than source code cases because 'their trade secrets are only a few pages long' (ECF 88 at 5). Pro Lash further asserts that its trade secrets require protection because they are 'irrelevant to Plaintiff's claims for patent infringement' (id.).