The Court thus also denies the parties' request to seal references to the relevant terms of the 2008 Settlement Agreement. This important need for transparency is underscored by the fact that Gillette pointed to Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 830 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) in support of its argument that the parties' disputes are not covered by the arbitration provision in the 2008 Agreement. (See D.I. 481, ex. A at 7) In Verinata, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explicitly set out the pertinent terms of a supply agreement that included an arbitration provision. 830 F.3d at 1337.

substantive and procedural issues unique to and intimately involved in federal patent law, and we apply regional circuit law to other substantive and procedural issues." Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 830 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Ordinarily, we apply regional circuit law to substantive and procedural issues not “intimately involved in federal patent law.” Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. , 830 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, on matters concerning our jurisdiction, “we apply our own law and not the law of the regional circuit.”

See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 2015 WL 5117083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“good cause ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential'”) (quoting Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)), aff'd, 830 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), Defendant had seven days to file a statement or declaration justifying the sealing of those documents.

Federal Circuit law applies to "substantive and procedural issues unique to and intimately involved in federal patent law." Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 830 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

II. LEGAL STANDARD “The Federal Circuit applies Federal Circuit law ‘to substantive and procedural issues unique to and intimately involved in federal patent law,' and applies ‘regional circuit law to other substantive and procedural issues.'” Christy, Inc. v. United States, 141 Fed.Cl. 641, 666 (2019), aff'd, 971 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 830 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). The decision to grant a motion to dismiss “is a purely procedural question not pertaining to patent law” that the Federal Circuit reviews under regional circuit law

The Court applies Federal Circuit law to “substantive and procedural issues unique to and intimately involved in federal patent law,” and Ninth Circuit law to other substantive and procedural issues. Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 830 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

(“A designation of ‘confidential' or ‘confidential - attorneys' eyes only' is not sufficient to establish that a document is sealable.”); Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 2015 WL 5117083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015), aff'd, 830 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“But good cause ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential'”) (quoting Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)).

applies Ninth Circuit law to all other substantive and procedural issues. See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 830 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Federal Circuit jurisprudence, however, applies to “substantive and procedural issues unique to and intimately involved in federal patent law.” Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 830 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016).