This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in patent cases by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In Performance Solutions, LLC v. Implus Footcare, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-1252, Magistrate Judge Levinson denied Plaintiff's motion to file the complaint and certain exhibits including a license agreement and communications regarding that agreement in unredacted form under seal. Plaintiff averred that the "sensitive nature of the information at issue—including proprietary business data and confidential financial records—warrants continued protection to prevent irreparable harm to the parties" and publicly filed redacted versions with the license and communications redacted in full.
The Court observed that filing under seal requires a compelling reason to deny the public its presumptive right of access to judicial documents, comprising a "particularized factual demonstration" and more than conclusory or blanket assertions. The Court underscored that the presumption of public access is directly correlated to significance to the case.
The Court observed that Plaintiff described the redacted materials as "integral to the Court's consideration of the matters before it" and were fully redacted including, for example, a forum selection clause. Finding that it "strains the imagination" that a forum selection clause might be so sensitive as to warrant redaction, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to seal.
Importantly, the Court denied the motion without prejudice and required that any renewed motion comport with the Court's standing order related to motions to seal and stipulated protective orders (link).
In biomodal Limited et al. v. New England Biolabs, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-11697, Judge Stearns addressed nine disputed patent claim terms relating to methods for regulating and detecting DNA methylation status using the activity of TET proteins.
The court's analysis focused on four pivotal terms, as the remaining five were construed for similar reasons:
1. "a catalytic fragment of any of these" / "TET catalytically active fragment thereof"
The parties agreed that the patentee had acted as its own lexicographer and defined the term in the patent specification. Defendant, however, proposed a "streamlined definition" to address alleged ambiguity. The Court rejected all but one of the proposed changes as unsupported by the specification, explaining that "[c]oncerns about ambiguity . . . are more properly addressed to indefiniteness rather than claim construction." As for the one permitted change – replacing "homology" with "identity," the Court found that the specification indicated the two words address the same concept, as homology is the "degree of sequence identity."
2. "a ten eleven translocation (TET) enzyme"
Central to this dispute was whether the term encompassed non-human TET enzymes lacking 70% homology with human TET1, TET2, or TET3. Plaintiffs relied on claim differentiation in support of a broader interpretation, but the Court was unconvinced for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs failed to identify any disclosed embodiments which used non-human TET enzymes lacking at least 70% homology with human TET1, TET2, or TET3. Second, the patentee had used multiple terms similar to the one under construction interchangeably to refer to the same group of human enzymes, and thus the Court inferred that the term under construction was but one more interchangeable term. The Court thus construed the term to exclude non-human enzymes.
3. "label[]"
The Court agreed with Defendant that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer, having defined the term in the patent specification.
4. "sequencing said mammalian nucleic acid comprising said labeled hydroxymethylated residue" / "sequencing said nucleic acid sequence"
Defendant argued that an amendment proposed in prosecution limited the claim scope because the Plaintiffs did not contest that the examiner disapproved the proposed amendment. The Court disagreed, finding there was no waiver of claim scope and emphasizing that the examiner's rejection of the proposed amendment "did not actually alter the scope of the claim," which remained as originally issued.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
