`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and AMNEAL
`PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56, Patent Owner Yeda Research &
`
`Development Co., Ltd., (“Patent Owner” or “Yeda”) respectfully submits this
`
`Motion to Expunge Exhibits 2108-2114, 2120-2122, and the Grabowski
`
`Declaration (Exhibit 2133) (“the Confidential Exhibits”) from the record. These
`
`exhibits contain confidential information of a third party, IMS Health Inc. (“IMS
`
`Health”).
`
`
`
`According to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (“Trial Practice Guide”), confidential information that is subject to
`
`a protective order ordinarily would become public 45 days after final judgment in a
`
`trial. Trial Practice Guide at 48760-61. A party seeking to maintain the
`
`confidentiality of information may file a motion to expunge the information from
`
`the record prior to the information becoming public. Id.; 37 C.F.R. § 42.56. In
`
`this case, 45 days after final judgment falls on Saturday, October 8, 2016, and so
`
`the confidential information would ordinarily become public on Monday, October
`
`10, 2016. Since Monday, October 10, 2016, is Columbus Day, a Federal Holiday,
`
`the confidential information in this case is scheduled to become public on Tuesday,
`
`October 11, 2016. Because the Confidential Exhibits contain confidential
`
`information, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board rule on this motion
`
`prior to the Confidential Exhibits becoming a part of the public record in this case.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Alternatively, Patent Owner requests that the Board issue an interim order delaying
`
`the public release of the Confidential Exhibits until such time that the Board can
`
`rule on Patent Owner’s Motion to Expunge.
`
`II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`On November 20, 2015, Patent Owner and Petitioner in this proceeding
`
`jointly requested that the Board enter the Board’s Default Protective Order. (Paper
`
`25.) On that same day, Patent Owner moved to seal portions of Exhibits 2108-
`
`2114, 2120-2122, and 2133, which all contain trade secrets and confidential
`
`business information of a non-party, IMS Health. (Paper 26, “Motion to Seal.”)
`
`On February 12, 2016, the Board ordered that the Default Protective Order be
`
`entered in this case (paper 52), and also granted Patent Owner’s motion to seal the
`
`Confidential Exhibits (paper 53, “Decision”), finding that Patent Owner had shown
`
`good cause for sealing the redacted portions of those declarations. Redacted
`
`versions of the Confidential Exhibits are publically available on the docket.
`
`III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(7), “confidential information” is protected
`
`from disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(7) (“The Director shall prescribe
`
`regulations…providing for protective orders governing the exchange and
`
`submission of confidential information.”). Confidential information should be
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`defined in a manner consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). Trial Practice
`
`Guide at 48760.
`
`
`
`Granting a motion to seal confidential information requires a showing of
`
`“good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. The same standard applies to a motion to
`
`expunge “confidential information” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.56 after final judgment in
`
`a trial. RPX Corp. v. Virnetx Inc., IPR2014-00171, Paper 62 at 3 (PTAB Sept. 9,
`
`2014). The movant generally has the burden of showing entitlement to the
`
`requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c); RPX Corp at 3.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO EXPUNGE THE CONFIDENTIAL
`EXHIBITS FROM THE RECORD
`
`The Board already agreed that there is good cause for the confidential
`
`
`
`information to be sealed. As Patent Owner stated in its Motion to Seal and as the
`
`Board agreed in its Decision granting that motion, the Confidential Exhibits
`
`“include proprietary data provided by IMS Health, a third party, concerning sales,
`
`prescriptions, and promotional spending concerning Copaxone® 40 mg/mL.”
`
`Decision at 2, citing Motion to Seal at 2. Further, “IMS Health represents that IMS
`
`data retains its value to IMS only when access to the data is restricted. IMS also
`
`represents that it owes contractual duties of confidentiality to its sources.” Id.
`
`Moreover, “interested members of the public can obtain the data in question
`
`directly from IMS Health (with any appropriate fee).” Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`According to the Practice Trial Guide, the rule regarding lifting the seal from
`
`any exhibits that had been filed under seal in an IPR “balances the needs of the
`
`parties to submit confidential information with the public interest in maintaining a
`
`complete and understandable file history for public notice purposes.” Trial
`
`Practice Guide at 48761. In this case, disclosure of the information in the
`
`Confidential Exhibits would detrimentally impact a non-party to this proceeding,
`
`which is contractually obligated to maintain the confidentiality of its data, and
`
`which sells its data to interested members of the public for an appropriate fee. As
`
`the Board noted in its Decision, any interested member of the public may access
`
`the sealed information directly from IMS, for an appropriate fee. Thus, the public
`
`interest in maintaining a complete and understandable file history may therefore be
`
`met in this case without the filed documents becoming public and the attendant
`
`negative impact to a non-party.
`
`Further, the Board’s Final Written Decision incorporates only a single
`
`number that is redacted from the entirety of the public versions of the Confidential
`
`Documents. Final Written Decision, Paper 86 at 28. This number is therefore now
`
`part of the public record. The remainder of the redacted material was not
`
`incorporated into the Board’s Final Written Decision and its publication is
`
`therefore not necessary to meet the public interest in maintaining a complete and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`understandable record in this case. The Confidential Exhibits should therefore not
`
`become public.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board expunge Exhibits 2108-2114, 2120-2122 and 2133, which contain
`
`confidential information of non-party IMS Health from the record in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Dated: September 23, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Elizabeth J. Holland/
`Elizabeth J. Holland
`Registration No. 47,657
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019-1405
`Tel: 212-813-8800
`Fax: 212-355-3333
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION TO EXPUNGE was served electronically via e-mail on September 23,
`
`2016 on the following:
`
`Jeffrey W. Guise
`
`jguise@wsgr.com
`
`Brandon M. White
`
`BMWhite@perkinscoie.com
`
`Shannon Bloodworth
`
`Sbloodworth@perkinscoie.com
`
`David Anstaett
`
`DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com
`
`Richard Torczon
`
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 23, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Elizabeth Holland/
`Counsel for Patent Owner