Published on:

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order Denied But Cautions Defendant That Sanctions Will Be Awarded If Defendant Fails to Convince the Court That a Protective Order Should Not Be Entered

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs’ filed a motion for a standard protective order to prevent the defendant from sharing confidential information. The district court denied the motion because the motion was not in the form of a joint stipulated as required by the local rules.

As explained by the court, “[b]efore the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order. The motion is denied because it is not in the form of a joint stipulation as required by Local Rule 37 and Plaintiffs do not explain why. The denial is, however, without prejudice for Plaintiffs to renew it in the form of a joint stipulation.”

The court also warned that the defendant could face sanctions if it did not agree to a stipulated protective order: “Should they do so and should Defendant fail to convince the Court that there is a compelling reason for failing to sign off on a protective order in this patent case–an order that is customarily and routinely agreed to in patent cases–Plaintiffs will be awarded sanctions, including attorney’s fees.”

Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Topstar Flooring LLC, CV 14-2199-RSWL (PJW) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2014)

The authors of are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or