Intertrust Technologies Corporation v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., 2:19-cv-00266

Intertrust sued Cinemark, AMC, and Regal for infringement of 11 patents relating to implementation of DCI digital cinema standards.
Intertrust designated Michael Karagosian as an industry/technical expert; Defendants moved to disqualify him and to block disclosure of Protected materials based on his prior consultancy for NATO.
Karagosian is a long‑time SMPTE standards participant and operated independent consulting firms (MKPE, The Cinema Group); from ~2000–2011 he consulted for NATO, briefing members and relaying feedback to DCI/SMPTE.
NATO engagements involved group discussions and reports (some labeled confidential); MKPE signed a JDCA in 2003 and Karagosian attended one meeting, but he was never individually retained or employed by any Defendant.
Defendants submitted declarations alleging disclosure of confidential business/technical information but did not produce the JDCA or any specific confidential documents for in camera review.
The Court found (1) no confidential/agency relationship between Karagosian and the Defendants, (2) insufficient evidence that he received confidential information relevant to this case, and (3) denied the Motion for Protective Order — Karagosian may serve as Intertrust’s expert under the Protective Order (Daubert challenge still available).

Issue	Intertrust's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether a confidential/agency relationship existed between Defendants and Karagosian	Karagosian was NATO's independent consultant and not an agent or employee of Defendants	Karagosian acted as NATO's agent/liaison, advised NATO members, prepared confidential reports and was paid to represent members' interests	No confidential/agency relationship; Karagosian consulted for NATO, not for Defendants individually
Whether Karagosian received confidential information relevant to this litigation	No proof he received relevant confidential material; declarations vague and documents not produced; much info was public or shared with competitors	He received confidential business, strategy and technical information via NATO and the JDCA	Defendants failed to prove disclosure of relevant confidential information to Karagosian
Whether public policy and practical considerations warrant disqualification (availability/prejudice)	Disqualification inappropriate absent concrete conflict; Intertrust lacks comparable experts; prejudice to Intertrust	Disqualification would not unduly prejudice Intertrust because other cleared experts exist and there is time to replace	Public policy disfavors disqualification on this record; motion denied; Karagosian may serve under the Protective Order; Daubert challenge remains possible

Koch Refining Co. v. Jennifer L. Boudreau M/V, 85 F.3d 1178 (5th Cir. 1996) (establishes two‑step test for expert disqualification: confidential relationship and disclosure of confidential information)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (court referenced availability of Daubert challenge to test expert admissibility)