Key Points:
- New Jersey federal magistrate judge bars prospective sealing of Markman proceedings, reinforcing the presumption of public access to court proceedings and records including those pertaining to claim construction.
- Court would not allow sealing for convenience or efficiency, rejecting omnibus motion to prospectively seal Markman materials.
- Local Rule 5.3 timing requirements are strictly enforced, including requests to seal completed Markman briefing.
A Reminder on Sealing Rules
Parties often wish to prevent public disclosure of sensitive business and proprietary information that can become the subject of litigation, especially in patent cases. A recent decision from the District of New Jersey serves as a pointed reminder that there are procedural requirements governed by the Local Rules — and that efficiency alone is not a sufficient reason to prospectively keep litigation materials out of public view.
In Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., the parties asked the court for permission to file a single, omnibus motion to seal their completed Markman briefing, the court’s forthcoming claim construction decision, and any related hearing transcript. The request was framed as a matter of efficiency: one consolidated motion, filed after the claim construction process concluded.
The court said no.
In an order on Jan. 13, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio denied the request because it was “in essence, a request for prospective temporary sealing of the claim construction hearing and the District Judge’s Markman decision.” That approach, the court explained, runs headlong into the presumption of public access to court records and proceedings — a presumption that cannot be set aside simply to streamline motion practice.
The court further ordered the parties to:
- File any motion to seal the already-submitted Markman briefing within 14 days
- Seek sealing of the Markman hearing at least five days in advance
- Address any request to seal the hearing transcript in accordance with Local Rule 5.3(g)
Practical Takeaways
For litigators, this decision reinforces that sealing in the District of New Jersey is not a rubber-stamp and that such motions should be filed in accordance with the timing requirements set forth in the Local Rules.
For companies and in-house teams, the ruling highlights a broader point: sensitive information does not automatically stay confidential once it enters litigation. Courts will scrutinize sealing requests closely, and delays or overly broad approaches can increase the risk that proprietary information becomes public. That reality should inform litigation strategy, internal document handling, and early coordination between legal and business teams when disputes are heading toward claim construction or other high-visibility proceedings.
Local Rule 5.3 spells out exactly what a motion to seal must contain and the timing for such a motion, and courts in the District of New Jersey expect parties to follow it carefully. The lesson from Novo Nordisk v. Apotex is not subtle: plan early, be precise, and do not assume the court will trade transparency for convenience.
[View source.]
