AmTab Mfg. Corp. v. SICO, Inc., No. 11 C 2692, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2012) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah denied defendants’ (collectively “SICO”) request to modify the Local Patent Rules standard protective order to include a prosecution bar.  While a prosecution bar could be appropriate, SICO failed to provide the specific facts necessary to meet its burden:

• SICO offered general statements of potential competitive injury, but offered no specific information the disclosure of which would injure SICO.
• SICO offered no examples of information it felt needed to be withheld.
• SICO did not demonstrate that plaintiff AmTab’s counsel was engaged in competitive decision making.
• AmTab’s outside counsel were not involved in marketing, product design, production, scientific research or pricing decisions.