Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. United States
109 Fed. Cl. 725
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Ross-Hime sues NASA, alleging Robonaut 2 infringes its patents.
- Protective Order governs designation of Proprietary vs Restricted Information.
- NASA-General Motors Space Act joint development agreement governs handling of Robonaut 2 data.
- Ross-Hime seeks access to NASA-protected Robonaut 2 drawings and photographs for its officers and draftsman.
- Court must balance privacy/public interest and potential competitive harm in designations and access.
- Court grants-in-part and denies-in-part Ross-Hime’s motion; for certain items (Exhibits 18-20) further briefing is required; Rosheim denied access due to competitive-decisionmaking risk; Joachim granted limited access pending Protective Order amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NASA properly designated materials as Proprietary Information | Ross-Hime argues some NASA disclosures are public and should be de-designated | NASA asserts joint development agreement and proprietary interests warrant designation | Protected designation upheld for most disputed items; Exhibits 18-20 pending briefing |
| Whether the five-year protection window applies to documents under the Space Act | Five-year term should perhaps bar disclosure beyond five years | Space Act controlling; five-year period runs after development | Court treats five-year period as beginning after development; timing issues to be briefed for Exhibits 18-20 |
| Whether Mr. Rosheim may access Proprietary Information given competitive-decisionmaking risk | Rosheim should access to pursue Ross-Hime’s interests | Rosheim’s leadership and patent activity create undue risk of misuse | Access denied for Mr. Rosheim due to competitive-decisionmaking risk |
| Whether Mr. Joachim may become a Proprietary Person to access Restricted Information | Joachim should be allowed access like Rosheim | Export/licensing burden and location constraints pose burden | Protective Order amended to allow Joachim as a Proprietary Person with case-by-case flexibility; grant of access to Joachim granted |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (protective orders balancing access versus competitive harm)
- Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (counsel-access and competitive-decisionmaking concerns under protective orders)
- Standard Space Platforms Corp. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 505 (200) (balancing test for access by officer/president against confidentiality)
- Baystate Techs., Inc. v. Bowers, 283 F. App’x 808 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (balancing privacy interests with public access to discovery)
- In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (expands on competitive-decisionmaking and access limits)