Paper No. 66
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`TARGET CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DESTINATION MATERNITY CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00533
`(U.S. Patent No. RE43,531)
`_____________
`
`Dated: September 23, 2014
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY TO SEAL
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.54
`
`EAST\83001936.1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`TARGET CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DESTINATION MATERNITY CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00533
`(U.S. Patent No. RE43,531)
`_____________
`
`Dated: September 23, 2014
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY TO SEAL
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.54
`
`EAST\83001936.1
`
`
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.14, Patent Owner Destination Maternity
`
`Corporation ("Patent Owner") and Petitioner Target Corporation ("Petitioner")
`
`jointly move to seal Petitioner's Reply in Support of Its Motion to Exclude
`
`Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ("Petitioner's Reply"). Petitioner's
`
`Reply was filed contemporaneously with this Motion.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Protective Order entered in this Inter Partes Review,
`
`Petitioner is also filing a partially redacted public version of Petitioner's Reply.
`
`See Protective Order, ¶ 4 (Paper No. 26). Because Petitioner's Reply contains
`
`nonpublic technical, financial, and other commercially sensitive information, the
`
`Parties jointly move to seal it for good cause explained in more detail below.
`
`I.
`
`Good Cause Exists for Sealing Confidential Information
`
`The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides that "[t]he rules aim to
`
`strike a balance between the public's interest in maintaining a complete and
`
`understandable file history and the parties' interest in protecting truly sensitive
`
`information." 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012). Further, those "rules
`
`identify confidential information in a manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective orders for trade secret or
`
`other confidential research, development, or commercial information." Id. (citing
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54); see also Illumina v. Columbia University, IPR2013-00011,
`
`Paper 66, Aug. 12, 2013 Dec. (granting a motion to seal "technical and business
`
`EAST\83001936.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`information" and "product development information").
`
`There is good cause to seal Petitioner's Reply because it contains
`
`confidential financial information of Patent Owner's products from Patent Owner's
`
`commercial success expert, Philip Green ("The Green Material"). The Green
`
`Material has been previously sealed in this proceeding and contains highly
`
`sensitive, confidential financial information and analysis related to Patent Owner's
`
`sales of products. The Green Material has been designated "Highly Confidential -
`
`- Attorneys' Eyes Only" by Patent Owner under the Protective Order entered in
`
`this Inter Partes Review. The Green Material also relies on documents produced
`
`in the underlying litigation that were designated "Confidential" and "Highly
`
`Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only" by Patent Owner under the Protective Order
`
`entered by the U.S. District Court. Accordingly, good cause exists to seal Patent
`
`Owner's Exclusion Opposition.
`
`II.
`
`Certification of Non-Publication
`
`The undersigned counsel certify that the information sought to be sealed by
`
`this Motion to Seal has not, to their knowledge, been published or otherwise
`
`made public. The Parties have made efforts to maintain the confidentiality of
`
`this information in this proceeding and in a related district court proceeding
`
`between the parties in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Pennsylvania (CA. No. 2:12-cv05680 AB).
`
`EAST\83001936.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`Accordingly, the Parties request that Petitioner's Reply be sealed pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14.
`
`Date: September 23, 2014
`
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
`s/ Norman J. Hedges
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`s/ Paul A. Taufer
`
`Norman J. Hedges (Reg. No. 44,151)
`R. Trevor Carter (Reg. No. 40,549)
`Daniel M. Lechleiter (Reg. No. 58,254)
`Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-1750
`norman.hedges@FaegreBD.com
`trevor.carter@FaegreBD.com
`daniel.lechleiter@FaegreBD.com
`Telephone: 317-237-0300
`Facsimile: 317-237-1000
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner, Target
`Corporation
`
`Paul A. Taufer (Reg. No. 35,703)
`Michael L. Burns (Reg. No. 57,593)
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`One Liberty Place
`1650 Market Street, Suite 4900
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Phone: (215) 656-3385
`Facsimile: (215) 606-3385
`paul.taufer@dlapiper.com
`michael.burns@dlapiper.com
`
`Stuart Pollack (Reg. No. 43,862)
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`1251 Avenue of the Americas
`27th Floor
`New York, NY 10020-1104
`Phone: (212) 335-4964
`Facsimile: (212) 884-
`stuart.pollack@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner, Destination
`Maternity Corporation
`
`EAST\83001936.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on September 23, 2014, a complete and entire
`
`copy of the Joint Motion For Entry To Seal Under 37 C.F.R. §42.54 was provided
`
`via email to the Petitioner by serving the email correspondence address of record
`
`as follows:
`
`Norman J. Hedges
`R. Trevor Carter
`Daniel M. Lechleiter
`Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-1750
`Phone: (317) 237-0300
`Fax: (317) 237-1000
`Norman.Hedges@FaegreBD.com
`trevor.carter@FaegreBD.com
`daniel.lechleiter@FaegreBD.com
`
`/s/ Paul Taufer
`Paul A. Taufer
`
`EAST\83001936.1
`
`5
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
