Case: 19-1837 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2019-1837
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA,
Judge William H. Alsup.
______________________
Decided: October 20, 2020
______________________
JUANITA ROSE BROOKS, Fish & Richardson, San Diego,
CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
FRANCIS J. ALBERT, OLIVER RICHARDS; ROBERT COURTNEY,
Minneapolis, MN; LISA KOBIALKA, HANNAH YUNKYUNG
LEE, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park,
CA.
JONATHAN STUART KAGAN, Irell & Manella LLP, Los
Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellee.
Case: 19-1837 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2020
2 FINJAN, INC. v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
______________________
Before PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and STOLL, Circuit
Judges.
PROST, Chief Judge.
Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) appeals from an order issued by
the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California (“Unsealing Order”) amid patent-infringe-
ment litigation between Finjan and Juniper Networks, Inc.
(“Juniper”). That order provides for unsealing a Daubert-
related order (“Daubert Order”) and states in full:
The order on the Daubert motions, filed under seal
today, shall remain under seal for two weeks, dur-
ing which one or more parties may seek appellate
review of this order to obtain redactions. Thereaf-
ter, absent order from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the order on the
Daubert motions will be filed on the public docket
by December 17 at noon.
J.A. 1 (emphasis omitted). The district court stayed un-
sealing of the Daubert Order pending this appeal. J.A. 14.
Finjan asks us to reverse the Unsealing Order and is-
sue an order of our own “granting limited redactions of
eight lines” of the Daubert Order that Finjan asserts dis-
close confidential licensing terms discussed between Fin-
jan and third-party licensees. Appellant’s Br. 4. Juniper
does not oppose. We have jurisdiction under the collateral
order doctrine. See Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., 964
F.3d 1351, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Apple Inc. v. Samsung
Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
DISCUSSION
“Where, as here, an appeal does not involve substan-
tive issues of patent law, we apply the law of the regional
circuit in which the district court sits.” Apple, 727 F.3d
Case: 19-1837 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 10/20/2020
FINJAN, INC. v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 3
at 1220. Courts in the Ninth Circuit “must conscientiously
balance the competing interests of the public and the party
who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at
1221 (citing Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). In Uniloc, for example, we va-
cated and remanded a portion of an order that “failed to
make findings sufficient to allow us to adequately assess
whether [the district court] properly balanced the public’s
right of access against the interests of the third parties in
shielding their financial and licensing information from
public view.” 964 F.3d at 1364. We do the same here. The
district court did not perform the required analysis. That
analysis is not for us to undertake in the first instance.
Therefore, we vacate the Unsealing Order and remand for
the district court to “make particularized determinations
as to whether and, if so, to what extent” the third-party li-
censing information raised by Finjan should be made pub-
lic. 1 Id.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the appealed order is vacated
and the case is remanded for further proceedings con-
sistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
1 Our mere vacatur of the Unsealing Order will not
have the effect of unsealing the currently sealed Daubert
Order.