The marking as confidential of legal argument con-
cerning the propriety of a decision by the court is gener-
ally inappropriate given the strong presumption of public
access to court proceedings and records.
An example of the problem:
One of the most blatant examples of improper confidentiality
markings involves case citations and parentheticals
describing the cited cases which are used to support the
proposition that “parol evidence should have been exam-
ined to resolve the ambiguity and determine the intent of
the parties.” See id. at iii–iv.
No good faith reading of our rule
could support Sun’s marking of its legal arguments as
confidential. The action of Sun’s counsel bespeaks an
improper casual approach to confidentiality markings
that ignores the requirements of public access, deprives
the public of necessary information, and hampers this
court’s consideration and opinion writing.
Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 are
imposed on Daniel P. Shapiro, counsel for Sun Pharma-
ceutical Industries, Ltd. and Caraco Pharmaceutical
Laboratories, Ltd., payable within thirty days to the clerk
of this court for the violation of Federal Circuit Rule 28(d).