A Case Study in Patent Litigation Transparency

Bernard H. Chao, Derigan A. Silver
{"title":"A Case Study in Patent Litigation Transparency","authors":"Bernard H. Chao, Derigan A. Silver","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2334417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The courts have long recognized a general right to inspect and copy judicial documents. Yet, large swaths of filings in patent litigations are often inaccessible. This article takes a closer look at this phenomenon by examining a single case. The Monsanto v. DuPont dispute over genetically modified Roundup resistant crops was chosen because of the impact it has on both agribusiness and patent law. The $1 billion award against DuPont will undoubtedly shape the future of the market for genetically modified crops. Moreover, because the award was issued before a single infringing seed was sold, the case raises novel patent remedy issues. This article assesses how transparent this landmark case was from two perspectives. Initially, it measures the nature and quantity of documents filed under seal. Next, this article selectively drills down on three different phases of the litigation, the pleadings, summary judgment and trial, to provide a more nuanced understanding of what the public cannot see. The results show a case that was fought largely in secret except for trial which was mostly open. Approximately 34% of the 1,697 of the filings listed in the PACER docket were filed under seal. This includes many of the key filings and court decisions. Moreover, the large majority of these secrets filings were made without any judicial oversight. It may be that the court simply did not have the resources to review all the applications to seal in this massive case. But regardless of the cause, this case highlights a recurring problem in patent litigation; the rampant sealing of documents of significant importance to the public.","PeriodicalId":344388,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2334417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The courts have long recognized a general right to inspect and copy judicial documents. Yet, large swaths of filings in patent litigations are often inaccessible. This article takes a closer look at this phenomenon by examining a single case. The Monsanto v. DuPont dispute over genetically modified Roundup resistant crops was chosen because of the impact it has on both agribusiness and patent law. The $1 billion award against DuPont will undoubtedly shape the future of the market for genetically modified crops. Moreover, because the award was issued before a single infringing seed was sold, the case raises novel patent remedy issues. This article assesses how transparent this landmark case was from two perspectives. Initially, it measures the nature and quantity of documents filed under seal. Next, this article selectively drills down on three different phases of the litigation, the pleadings, summary judgment and trial, to provide a more nuanced understanding of what the public cannot see. The results show a case that was fought largely in secret except for trial which was mostly open. Approximately 34% of the 1,697 of the filings listed in the PACER docket were filed under seal. This includes many of the key filings and court decisions. Moreover, the large majority of these secrets filings were made without any judicial oversight. It may be that the court simply did not have the resources to review all the applications to seal in this massive case. But regardless of the cause, this case highlights a recurring problem in patent litigation; the rampant sealing of documents of significant importance to the public.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
专利诉讼透明度案例研究
法院长期以来一直承认查阅和复制司法文书的一般权利。然而,大量的专利诉讼文件往往是无法获取的。本文通过分析一个案例来深入研究这一现象。孟山都诉杜邦转基因抗农达作物之争之所以被选中,是因为它对农业综合企业和专利法都有影响。针对杜邦公司的10亿美元赔偿金无疑将塑造转基因作物市场的未来。此外,由于该裁决是在单个侵权种子被出售之前发布的,因此该案件提出了新的专利救济问题。本文从两个角度评估了这一具有里程碑意义的案件的透明度。最初,它衡量的是密封文件的性质和数量。接下来,本文有选择地深入探讨了诉讼的三个不同阶段,即诉状、即决判决和审判,以提供对公众看不到的东西的更细致的理解。结果显示,除了公开审判外,这起案件基本上是秘密进行的。PACER摘要中列出的1,697份文件中约有34%是密封提交的。这包括许多关键文件和法院判决。此外,这些机密文件中的绝大多数是在没有任何司法监督的情况下提交的。也许法院根本没有足够的资源来审查所有的申请,以便在这个庞大的案件中盖章。但无论原因如何,这起案件凸显了专利诉讼中一个反复出现的问题;对公众具有重要意义的文件的猖獗封存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Observing Online Courts: Lessons from the Pandemic Discovery as Regulation Section 89 of the CPC: ADR and Business Disputes. Brief for Samuel L. Bray as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Merck & Co. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. Adversarial Persuasion with Cross-Examination
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1