When a shell company called Lumen View Technology wielded a patent on "multilateral decision making" against a startup called FindTheBest, it ran into unexpected opposition. Instead of getting a quick payout as Lumen View had from many other small businesses, FindTheBest responded to the $50,000 demand by going public and filing a RICO lawsuit.

That action frustrated Lumen View's lawyer, Damian Wasserbauer. Last month, Wasserbauer asked (PDF) the judge overseeing his case for an extraordinary order, which would ban FindTheBest from talking to the press.

Wasserbauer said that FindTheBest had broken confidentiality rules by revealing Lumen View's $50,000 demand. US District Judge Denise Cote rejected his arguments this morning in a 6-page order (PDF), noting that Wasserbauer was in fact asking for a "gag order," something that had raised serious constitutional issues.

"The plaintiff does not come close to carrying the burden of justifying imposition of a gag order," wrote Cote. She continues:

The plaintiff first explains that its motion is predicated on Federal Rule of Evidence 408, which restricts the admission of settlement negotiations into evidence. That argument is meritless. Rule 408 is a rule of evidence. It is inapposite where, as here, the question is not whether material will be admitted into evidence in court but whether a party may discuss certain matters in public. ... Given this record, the plaintiff has not submitted sufficient evidence to show that any oral confidentiality agreement was reached. Moreover, a gag order implicates serious constitutional issues. Without opining as to what circumstances might justify such an order, it is enough to note that they are not present here.

Wasserbauer declined to comment when he filed his motion and didn't respond to a request for comment this morning.

Danny Seigle, director of operations at Santa Barbara-based FindTheBest, said his company was happy with the judge's order.

"Honestly, we think the motion was a bit out of order," said Seigle, who was reached in Washington DC, where he is advocating for reform of the patent system. "It shows they have something to hide, and they don't want to be exposed. We're going to keep talking to the media."

"They're making it look like this was a stunt. But we would forgo the media attention in a heartbeat if the system was working properly. We're representing hundreds, if not thousands, of others that aren't able to speak up."

Tomorrow, Seigle will be addressing a House subcommittee looking into patent trolls along with other vocal troll critics including Newegg's Chief Legal Office, Lee Cheng. The hearing will be the third one about patent trolls since the end of the government shutdown in October.