`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`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 628 Filed 10/20/20 Page 2 of 3
`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 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 628 Filed 10/20/20 Page 3 of 3
`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.
`
`