Courts are not private forums for business disputes; they are public institutions, and their records belong to the public. However, courts often allow for excessive sealing, especially in patent cases. ### EFF Uncovers Sealed Information in *Wilus* Case The **EFF** recently discovered another instance of this in the Eastern District of Texas, where key court filings about Wi-Fi technology used by billions of people every day were hidden from public view. The case, *Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. HP Inc.*, highlights a recurring transparency problem in patent litigation. **Wilus** claims to own standard essential patents (SEPs) related to Wi-Fi 6 — technology embedded in everyday devices. Wilus sued **Samsung** and **HP** for patent infringement. HP argued that Wilus failed to offer licenses on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Upon reviewing the docket, the EFF found that many filings were improperly sealed under a lenient protective order without the required justification. There is a presumption of public access to court filings, so litigants must file a motion to seal and demonstrate compelling reasons for secrecy. In the Eastern District of Texas, this standard is often not enforced. Instead, district judges allow litigants to hide information using boilerplate justification in a protective order without explaining why specific documents or parts of documents should be hidden. In *Wilus*, two sets of documents stood out: * First, Samsung moved to dismiss the case, arguing Wilus may not have validly obtained the patents. Wilus’s opposition to that motion was filed *completely under seal*, with no redacted public version available. That briefing likely addresses the patent assignment agreements that underpin Wilus’s business model. * Second, filings related to HP’s supplemental briefing on FRAND obligations were also sealed in full, with no redacted versions available to the public. Whether Wilus is bound by FRAND has implications far beyond this case. In both instances, the public was shut out of arguments that bear directly on how essential technologies are licensed and controlled. ### EFF Pushes for Public Access The EFF raised these concerns with Wilus’s counsel and pressed for public access to the sealed records. Wilus ultimately agreed to file redacted versions of several documents, which are now available as [Document Numbers 387, 388, and 389](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69161107/wilus-institute-of-standards-and-technology-inc-v-hp-inc/?page=3). Even now, these newly filed redacted versions conceal significant portions of the parties’ arguments. The public still cannot fully see how this case about technologies that are used every day is being litigated. ### Why Public Access Matters Sealing court records is designed to be rare. To overcome the presumption of public access, litigants must show compelling reasons for secrecy. Open courts are a distinguishing feature of American democracy. Some filings do contain trade secrets or commercially sensitive information. But that doesn’t mean litigants should be able to hide information without explaining why. The Eastern District of Texas allows litigants to bypass the requirement to explain why. The EFF confronted this very same issue in another Eastern District of Texas case, *Entropic v. Charter*. The same pattern appeared again in *Wilus*: instead of narrowly tailored redactions supported by specific reasoning, filings were withheld wholesale. ### Courts Must Enforce the Standard Courts, not third parties, are responsible for protecting the public’s right of access. That means enforcing the “compelling reasons” standard. Parties seeking to seal sensitive information should be required to justify each proposed redaction. Heavy caseloads don’t change the rule. Administrative burden cannot override constitutional and common law rights. Judicial records are presumptively public. Courts, including the Eastern District of Texas, should enforce that presumption. ### Other Federal Courts Get It Right The Eastern District of Texas is an outlier. In the Northern District of California, judges routinely reject overbroad sealing requests. As [Judge Chhabria’s Civil Standing Order](https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/VC-Civil-Standing-Order-2025-06-27.pdf) explains: > [M]otions to seal . . . are almost always without merit. . . . Federal courts are paid for by the public, and the public has the right to inspect court records, subject only to narrow exceptions. > The filing party must make a specific showing explaining why each document that it seeks to seal may justifiably be sealed . . . Generic and vague references to “competitive harm” are almost always insufficient justification for sealing. This approach reflects the law: sealing must be narrowly tailored and specifically justified. ### Court Transparency is Fundamental Secrecy in patent litigation signals a broader erosion of transparency. The widespread use of expansive protective orders in the Eastern District of Texas is a practice that risks spreading if courts do not enforce the law. These practices allow private parties to obscure information about disputes involving technologies that shape modern life. That undermines a core principle of a free society: transparency regarding the actions of powerful actors. Courts are not private forums for business disputes. They are public institutions, and their records belong to the public. So long as these practices continue, the EFF will keep advocating for transparency and working to vindicate the public’s right to access court records.