PARKERVISION, INC.
v.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
ParkerVision sought to file documents under seal in an ongoing patent infringement dispute with QUALCOMM, citing an expert witness's cancer diagnosis as justification for protecting sensitive medical information from public disclosure.
The court granted ParkerVision's unopposed motion to seal, finding good cause under Local Rule 1.11 and the Eleventh Circuit's standard for sealing based on recognized privacy interests in personal medical information.
[1] Good cause exists to allow a party to file a reply brief and related exhibits under seal when the sealing is necessitated by an expert witness's cancer diagnosis.
[2] A court may require that information filed under seal be made public if it determines the information is not properly subject to sealing.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The law recognizes a person's privacy interest in their personal medical information.”
The court's rationale for allowing the sealing of documents containing sensitive medical information about an expert witness.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParkerVision filed an unopposed motion to seal its reply brief and related exhibits in support of a motion for reconsideration. The motion was made in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause For Sealing cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is ParkerVision's Unopposed Motion to Seal ParkerVision's Reply Brief in Support of Its Opposed Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's December 9, 2024 Order (Dkt. 726) in Light of the Expert Witness's Cancer Diagnosis. Doc. No. 788. Defendants do not oppose. Id. at 2, 6.
Based on the representations in the motion, having considered Local Rule 1.11 and the Eleventh Circuit's standard for sealing, and for reasons similar to those previously set forth in prior Orders, see Doc. Nos. 466, 771, 774, the Court finds good cause to allow ParkerVision to file the reply and related exhibits under seal. See Clark v. FDS Bank, No. 6:17-cv-692-Orl-41TBS, 2018 WL 6503583, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2018) (“The law recognizes a person's privacy interest in their personal medical information.").
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. ParkerVision's Unopposed Motion to Seal ParkerVision's Reply Brief in Support of Its Opposed Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's December 9, 2024 Order (Dkt. 726) in Light of the Expert Witness's Cancer Diagnosis (Doc. No. 788) is GRANTED.
2. On or before March 25, 2025, ParkerVision shall separately file the documents described in the motion under seal.
3. Upon review, the Court may require that some or all of the information filed under seal be filed in the public record, if it determines that the information is not properly subject to sealing. Otherwise, this seal shall not extend beyond ninety (90) days after the case is closed and all appeals exhausted. See Local Rule 1.11(e).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 24, 2025.
Leslie Hoffman Price UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties