Judge Orders Caltech to Justify Sealing Request in ChromaCode Patent Dispute

Judge U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi

U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi on Tuesday ordered the California Institute of Technology to explain why discovery documents in a patent infringement case should remain sealed, warning that 'overly broad requests to seal may result in the denial of the motion.'

The dispute centers on ChromaCode Inc.'s patent infringement lawsuit against Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., with Caltech involved as a party subject to discovery. Bio-Rad had filed a motion to compel additional testimony from a Caltech representative under Federal Rule 30(b)(6), leading to a discovery dispute that Bio-Rad sought to seal based on Caltech's confidentiality designations.

Judge DeMarchi granted Bio-Rad until noon on April 9 to file either a justification for maintaining the seal or confirmation that the documents can be made public. As DeMarchi noted, Caltech 'was required to file, by April 1, 2026, a statement in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(c), explaining why the Court should maintain the seal on the subject documents' but failed to do so.

The court emphasized the strong public interest in court transparency, reminding parties that 'the public has a right of access to the Court's files' and that they 'must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents.'

The sealing request arose from Bio-Rad's March 25 administrative motion regarding discovery dispute letters and exhibits that were provisionally filed under seal. Bio-Rad justified the sealing based on Caltech's designation of certain information as 'Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only' under the parties' stipulated protective order.

Judge DeMarchi rejected any presumption that protective order designations automatically justify sealing, requiring Caltech to provide specific justification under local court rules. The court's order allows Bio-Rad to respond by April 13 if Caltech files a statement seeking to maintain the seal.

The ruling reflects growing judicial skepticism of broad sealing requests in patent litigation, where parties often seek to shield competitive information from public view. DeMarchi warned that future failures to comply with sealing procedures 'may result in the unsealing of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the Designating Party.'

The case involves ChromaCode's proprietary technology and highlights the tension between protecting trade secrets during litigation and maintaining public access to court proceedings. The discovery dispute suggests ongoing disagreements about the scope of testimony required from Caltech representatives.

Counsel

Counsel information was not provided in the court filing.

Case

The case is ChromaCode, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., case number 5:23-cv-04823-EKL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Court

Northern District of California

Case Name

IN RE: CHROMACODE LITIGATION

Docket

5:23-cv-04823