Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Google LLC
2:18-cv-03629
| C.D. Cal. | Jul 26, 2019Background
- Realtime Adaptive Streaming sued Google/YouTube alleging patent-related claims; the parties have a Protective Order in place.
- Google moved to supplement the Protective Order to add a patent-acquisition (prosecution) bar restricting counsel who access certain highly confidential materials from participating in patent acquisition or counseling on video-compression patents.
- The Court required Google to first show good cause under In re Deutsche Bank and deferred final ruling pending supplemental briefing and a declaration from a Google engineer (Wolf).
- Wolf described Google’s proprietary transcoding infrastructure (including source code and technical documentation), asserted confidentiality measures, and warned of competitive harm from inadvertent disclosure.
- Realtime argued (1) it is not a Google competitor (irrelevant to acquisition bars), (2) Google failed to identify specific documents relevant to patent acquisition, and (3) the proposed trigger language was overbroad.
- The Court found Google met the initial good-cause showing but narrowed and clarified the scope of the acquisition bar as a compromise between the parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Google showed good cause for an acquisition/prosecution bar | Realtime: Google didn’t identify specific documents tied to patent acquisition; competing-party status irrelevant | Google: Wolf Decl. shows proprietary transcoding code/docs and competitive harm from disclosure; good cause exists | Court: Google satisfied the Deutsche Bank good-cause requirement |
| Proper scope of information that triggers the bar | Realtime: Limit to trade-secret source code of transcoding; proposed language overbroad and may capture public standards | Google: Bar should cover transcoding infrastructure and any technical docs/source code for accused products | Court: Bar limited to (a) functionality of Google’s transcoding infrastructure (code and docs) and (b) source code of accused products (compromise) |
| Whether confidential technical documentation (non-source-code) may trigger the bar | Realtime: Only trade-secret source code should trigger a prosecution bar | Google: Technical documentation also confidential and risky if disclosed | Court: Documentation tied to transcoding infrastructure may trigger the bar; broader accused-product documentation not independently supported by Wolf Decl. but source code of accused products will trigger bar per parties’ compromise |
| Duration and activities covered by the bar | Realtime: Opposed breadth and duration implicitly | Google: Two-year bar after final disposition; prohibits patent acquisition and advising on acquisitions for video-compression patents but allows other patent work | Court: Adopted Google’s proposed activities and two-year duration, with the narrowed scope described above; exemptions may be sought counsel-by-counsel per Deutsche Bank |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (sets framework for entry and scope of patent-prosecution/acquisition bars and the need to balance risk and remedy)