GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. v. SIGMAPHARM LABS , No. 14-1456 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. ______________________ 2014-1456 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in No. 2:10-cv-04931-SDW-MCA, Judge Susan D. Wigenton. ______________________ Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER On November 19, 2014, we issued a show-cause order, directing Defendant-Appellant Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC (“Sigmapharm”) to “show cause why this court should not impose sanctions for the violation of Federal Circuit Rule 28(d),” because its briefs appeared to mark legal argument as confidential. Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Sigmapharm Labs., LLC, No. 2014-1456, slip op. at 3 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2014). Sigmapharm’s response to the 2 GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. v. SIGMAPHARM LABS show-cause order was filed on November 26, 2014. In response to the show-cause order, Sigmapharm admitted that the redactions contain legal argument, and apologized for the improper redactions. Defendant-Appellant’s Response to November 19, 2014, Order at 3, Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Sigmapharm Labs., LLC, No. 2014-1456 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 26, 2014). As Sigmapharm admits, its briefs plainly violated Federal Circuit Rule 28(d) in marking legal argument as confidential. See In re Violation of Rule 28(d), 635 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“No good faith reading of our rule could support [a party’s] marking of its legal arguments as confidential.”). However, while the amount of confidentiality marking was extensive, the improper confidentiality marking was not extensive. Sigmapharm has apologized for the improper redactions, and it filed amended versions of its briefs which removed all of the redactions. Therefore, we have determined that no sanctions will be imposed for this violation. FOR THE COURT December 8, 2014 Date cc: John E. Rosenquist Marc R. Wezowski K. Lee Marshall Robert L. Stolebarger Ameer Gado Anthony Friedman Nicholas M. Cannella Timothy J. Kelly Christopher E. Loh /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
